Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ABERYSTWYTH HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 20 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Graduate Enterprise Programme

Mr. Patrick Thompson: asked the Paymaster General how many graduates are now being trained on the graduate enterprise programme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): In 1985–86 graduates are taking part in the programme at Stirling university, St. David's college, Lampeter, the Cranfield institute of technology and the London enterprise agency with the Central Polytechnic of London. There are plans to expand the programme next year, when Durham and Warwick university business schools will join it.

Mr. Thompson: I welcome that and other measures to improve the employment prospects of graduates. May I ask why the numbers are so low? Does my hon. Friend agree that we must encourage further incentives and initiatives from private industry to improve and increase the numbers of talented graduates who have the right attitude and motivation? We must do more, and I hope that we are doing more.

Mr. Trippier: It is important to stress that those are only pilot schemes. They form part of training for enterprise, which is a massive programme, on which we are spending £14·3 million in helping more than 25,000 people. I note the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. I am anxious to develop and strengthen the programme as quickly as possible.

Special Measures

Mr. Dixon: asked the Paymaster General if he intends to take any action on the Employment Committee's report on special employment measures and the long-term unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): We are studying the report very carefully and will give a detailed response to the Committee as soon as is practicable.

Mr. Dixon: Does the Paymaster General accept that the greatest crisis facing this country today is the fact that 4 million men and women are unemployed, of whom 1·6 million have been unemployed for many months? That is a tragedy. Why does the Minister not take note of the constructive suggestions of my hon. Friends, who have spent many hours on the Select Committee?

Mr. Clarke: When the report was produced I welcomed the Select Committee's contribution and agreed with its choice of subject and concentration on age and the long-term unemployed. The Government are already spending more than £2·5 billion on training and employment measures aimed at the same target. I gave a preliminary view on some of the suggestions put forward which did not seem likely to achieve the objectives described.

Mr. Rowe: In his consideration of the report, will my right hon. and learned Friend give careful thought to the possibility of offering some of those people a guarantee of employment? If the political will were there, that could be achieved. It was achieved with the Christmas guarantee for the youth training scheme. Would it not be the most humane and practical way of helping the long-term unemployed?

Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend says, we have given a guarantee to 16-year-old school leavers. Experiments are taking place to try to give guarantees to the long-term unemployed in Bolton, among other places, within existing schemes. All those measures are worth considering. We cannot give a guarantee of employment to the long-term unemployed until we have worked out schemes to give them work experience, training, or a job. That is why we are rapidly expanding our community programme and other programmes.

Mr. Wainwright: As the Select Committee report directly involved the work of the Manpower Services Commission, will the Paymaster General tell the House about last night's report, according to the papers this morning, that his right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Young, has taken over from the Paymaster General personal responsibility for the direction of the Manpower Services Commission, which means that there will be no one directly answerable for the commission in the House of Commons, which funds the commission?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Young, has no more ousted me from responsibility for MSC matters, than I have ousted him from responsibility for industrial relations, inner cities, race relations, and areas in which I play a more prominent role. We have been reduced from five to four Ministers, with the transfer of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) to the Department of Transport, and we have reorganised the distribution of the day-to-day routine work of the Department. Otherwise, we continue to work together.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the success of the Government's policies is evident in the falling numbers of short-term


unemployed? When will he consider that the lessons learnt from the pilot schemes can be used to reduce the increasing numbers of long-term unemployed?

Mr. Clarke: We are trying out pilot schemes in selected cities and concentrating on giving individual attention to the needs of each long-term unemployed person. That is obviously required to bring back into the world of work people who have been away from it for a long time. We are anxiously considering the results in the pilot areas to see what success we are achieving, and we shall certainly build on our achievements as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Leighton: Has the Paymaster General noticed that the meticulously researched and unique report of the Select Committee has received a warm welcome from the quality press, including the editorial in the Financial Times on Friday? Has he further noticed the recognition that, if we are serious about tackling unemployment and money is available in the Budget, it is better spent on special employment measures than on tax cuts? When can we expect the White Paper that he has promised in response to the report, and when can we have a proper debate about it?

Mr. Clarke: The Government propose next year to spend £2,670 million on employment and training measures. We are not rejecting the idea of spending money purposefully on ways of assisting the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed. We must consider the Select Committee's proposals. Can we provide one-year jobs in the building industry without displacing other workers? Can we find 100,000 new useful jobs in the National Health Service and social services? Is it right to subsidise each long-term unemployed person to the extent set out by the Select Committee, thereby displacing many people from existing jobs? The proposals must be considered anxiously, but we must find remedies that work. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will not turn their back on them.

Mr. Hayes: I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says. When he carefully considers the report, as I am sure he will, will he bear in mind that many Conservative Members are deeply worried that not enough is yet being done to help the long-term unemployed?

Mr. Clarke: We are trying out initiatives, such as job restart courses and job start allowances, in nine selected areas and expanding the community programne as rapidly as possible so that each month a further 10,000 people can be taken on. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall consider every opportunity of giving more assistance to the long-term unemployed. We are arguing, not about the aim, but about the mechanics for achieving it.

Mr. Evans: Does the Paymaster General accept that the programme proposed by the Employment Select Committee, which has a built-in Tory majority, would create 750,000 jobs for the long-term unemployed—people who have been out of work for more than 12 months? Does he acknowledge that until his Government or the next Government adopt such a programme, the long-term unemployed, such as those in St. Helens, will have no chance whatsoever of finding a job?

Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that the Select Committee's proposals would produce 750,000 new jobs. We shall consider the proposals carefully and give a

considered, detailed response in the White Paper. Direct measures have played an important part in the Government's policies during the past few years. We have spent far more on and put far more effort into them than our predecessors. We shall continue to consider new and effective methods.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Proctor: asked the Paymaster General how many persons are currently on YTS courses in the Billericay constituency; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Trippier: At 31 December 1985, the latest date for which statistics are available, there were some 700 young people in training on the youth training scheme in the Basildon local authority district, which contains the constituency of Billericay.
From 1 April 1986 YTS will offer two years of vocational and work-based training for 16-year-old school leavers and one year for 17-year-olds, giving everyone who takes part in it the chance of a vocational qualification recognised by industry. It will be a partnership between Government, industry and trainers and will help to produce the better qualified young work force which industry needs.

Mr. Proctor: Despite the attempt by some Labour politicians to rubbish the youth training scheme, will my hon. Friend confirm that 80 per cent. of youngsters who have completed the course believe that it is worth while?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is correct. More than 80 per cent. of the youngsters who have taken advantage of YTS have been well satisfied with the training that they have received. I am a little confused as to where the Labour party stands on this issue. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), in the debate a week last Monday, said that broadly he supported the scheme, but some of his colleagues are content to rubbish it. I often wonder how many youngsters are deterred from going on the YTS because they believe that kind of cant.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister is well aware that the Opposition support two-year training under the YTS or any other banner. He should not compare Billericay, with its 20 per cent. of young people who do not finish with a job, with the 40 per cent. and over in the northern region with no jobs after YTS. What will he do about the disparities between places such as Billericay and the others which have been doubly hit by the lack of employment opportunity at the end of YTS and the Government's wicked way of closing mode B provision and not replacing it with premium placings?

Mr. Trippier: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. They were a reaffirmation of what he said in the debate a week last Monday, that, broadly, the Labour party supports the scheme. We regard it as a quality scheme. The House will be interested to hear that 86 per cent. of the places available on the two-year scheme have already been found. The fear that he expressed in the debate a week last Monday seems to be unfounded.

Jobcentres (Registration)

Mr. Watts: asked the Paymaster General if he will take steps to introduce a requirement for unemployed persons in areas of low unemployment and severe skill shortage to register at jobcentres.

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Paymaster General how many of the unemployed are registered at a jobcentre; and what percentage of the overall total this represents.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Ian Lang): Job seekers whose skills are in short supply are already encouraged to register at jobcentres. We have no plans to reintroduce general compulsory registration. There are some 420,000 people registered at jobcentres. However, records do not distinguish between the unemployed and employed people seeking a change of employment.

Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend accept that I find his answer deeply disappointing? Does he agree that it is scandalous that in the 14 travel-to-work areas with unemployment of less than 8 per cent., where there are 138,000 people drawing unemployment benefit, only 14,000 people are registered at jobcentres, and that in Slough, of 4,500 unemployed people, only 210—less than 1 in 20 — are on the register? What will he do about that scandal?

Mr. Lang: I take careful note of the point made by my hon. Friend. In his constituency, the Government already assist through the national priority scheme and the adult training strategy in the short term and through YTS in the long term. He might also like to know that the European Community is interested in promoting a study on skill shortages in the Thames Valley area.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. I am disappointed that he replied in the way that he did, when only about 12 per cent. of unemployed people register at jobcentres. Does he agree that an unemployed person who cannot be bothered to register at a jobcentre is not keen to obtain a job? Will he assure the House that closer links will be established between unemployment benefit offices and jobcentres and that it will be necessary for all unemployed people to register at jobcentres?

Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of welcome. I listened with interest to what he said because of the authority that he brings to the subject. I am sure he will agree, however, that compulsory registration is not a cost-effective way of testing availability. Although we are unhappy about the adequacy of the present work test, the Manpower Services Commission has reported that in 1984–85 there were over 14 million substantive contacts at jobcentres.

Mr. Eastham: The Minister trots out the figures for skill shortages, but is he aware that the Conservative Government decided to close down the skill-centres—the places that would answer some of the needs of the nation?

Mr. Lang: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of the care with which jobcentres try to match job seekers to job vacancies. They circulate details of hard-to-fill vacancies and maintain a computer bank of vacancies likely to be hard to fill locally.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that some of his Tory friends who speak about people not registering for jobs have a cheek, when between them they have more than 700 moonlighting jobs, directorships and consultancies, and some of those Members do not have the guts to register their jobs in the Members' Register of Interests?

Mr. Lang: I am not sure of the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary to the question. The Government are as anxious as he is to do something about unemployment. We are bringing as many and varied measures to bear on the problem as we can.

Mr. Butterfill: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread problem in the tourism and leisure sectors? A glance in my local paper reveals that the number of jobs available substantially exceeds those looking for them. Will my hon. Friend take steps to convince people that jobs in the tourist industry and the service sector in general are worth while and real jobs that should be taken up?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The importance of the service sector cannot be overlooked.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Sean Hughes: asked the Paymaster General what progress has been made in promoting the YTS.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On 27 January my right hon. and noble Friend, together with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, the director general of the CBI and the general secretary of the TUC launched an advertising campaign to promote the new two-year YTS.

Mr. Hughes: Have not the Government yet again had to resort to using actors, this time to promote the YTS? Does that not demonstrate the implausibility of the miserable sums that are on offer?

Mr. Clarke: The advertising is necessary to ensure that we have people, including employers, coming forward to provide the training that we want and also to make young people generally aware of what is on offer now that we are going for a two-year good quality training programme available to all of them. I do not know what the hon. Member means by "miserable sums". By 1987–88 we shall have passed the £1 billion mark each year in spending on youth training.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is imperative that the unions support the YTS? Is he aware that there are 50 youngsters engaged in YTS in Norfolk county council whose second year is being threatened by the National and Local Government Officers Association? Will my right hon. and learned Friend have a word with NALGO and give it a prod?

Mr. Clarke: The TUC supports the YTS and the scheme is run by the Manpower Services Commission, on which there are three trade union representatives as commissioners, including such leading figures as the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. I agree that some unions still prove to be difficult in practice in some localities, and NALGO is less than helpful. However, I do not have the influence on NALGO that the Opposition might have if they took a more constructive view.

Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a chance to look at the matter that I raised with him two or three weeks ago—the extra burden that is being put on local authorities to bear part of the burden for the YTS? How much of the burden is being put on local authorities? When the transitional payments are exhausted, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the


whole burden is borne by the central Exchequer rather than by local authorities with the highest unemployment in the land?

Mr. Clarke: Local authorities are supported in the same way as other employers, and the contribution made to the employers must reflect the fact that, certainly in the second year, the trainees are often adding some value to their service or business. One of the main problems faced by local authorities comes from NALGO, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) said, because payments to young trainees need to be topped up far above the necessary levels. Therefore, the local authorities saddle themselves with unnecessary wage levels. That is a matter between the local authorities and NALGO. There is no reason why central Government funding should contribute to such payments.

Mr. Terlezki: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it very difficult to promote the YTS when the Opposition invariably try to discourage young people by stating that it is slave labour? They know nothing about slave labour whatsoever. They should encourage young people to join the YTS.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The payment made to trainees on the YTS reflects the fact that they are in training. It is a realistic payment for those going straight from school and receiving their first training at work. Sixty per cent. of them go straight to jobs when they have completed their training. The Opposition's position is quite ridiculous. They say, through clenched teeth, that they support the two-year YTS, but then, as my hon. Friend says, they launch into destructive publicity which puts young people off.

Mr. Prescott: I congratulate the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment on joining the Front Bench. It coincides with a time when much of the responsibility of the Department is being transferred to another place.
When the Paymaster General had direct responsibility for the Manpower Services Commission, did he endorse the appointment of the Tory public relations agency, Saatchi and Saatchi, whose black propaganda reminded us at the election that Labour policies were not working, when unemployment was a third of what it is today? Did the Paymaster General also endorse the propaganda in the national newspapers to the effect that apparently Japan has to look out for Spikey Dodds in a youth training scheme which has fewer resources, qualifications and job opportunities when compared with YTS in other countries?

Mr. Clarke: I have given the reason why we are promoting and advertising the youth training scheme. We want the providers of good quality training and young people to know what is on offer, because they will benefit from it. It would be absurd to spend £1 billion on the programme and to spend nothing to promote the programme that that money makes available.
On the matter of Spikey Dodds and Japan, I think it is important to underline the fact that this country has to be competitive in an international market which is very often dominated by Japan. Better quality training for our young people and a more skilled work force will help us to achieve that.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I want to refer to the question of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) on the cost to local authorities of the YTS. In my constituency it is over £500,000 a year. If one accepts that authorities should contribute, can the Minister at least persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that such expenditure should not be subject to rate capping?

Mr. Clarke: Much local government expenditure does not arise directly from the youth training scheme or the Government's rules for it. Such expenditure arises from the fact that local authorities give way to political pressure and pay wage rates to those being trained which are higher than necessary and higher than those provided by many private employers. I cannot stop local authorities from doing that. It is absurd to suggest that we should divert money from our training budget to subsidise local authorities which do that.

Solihull

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Paymaster General if he will indicate the extent to which unemployment has fallen in the Solihull constituency since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The number of unemployed claimants in the Solihull parliamentary constituency fell 1·1 per cent. between 12 January 1984 and 9 January 1986. Male unemployment fell by 10·5 per cent. over the same period. There is an extensive range of Government assistance to attract new investment and new jobs to the west midlands.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and welcome the trend in Solihull. However, may I ask him to have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry in case General Motors' proposal for Land Rover in Solihull reverses that welcome trend?

Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome and take note of his advice. My hon. Friend might like to know that in the Birmingham travel-to-work area unskilled vacancies have risen by 4,588 — up 47 per cent. on January 1985.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Paymaster General how many people were unemployed in May 1979; and how many are currently unemployed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Paymaster General how many people are unemployed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On 9 January the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,407,700. An estimated 1,218,900 people were claiming unemployment benefits in May 1979.

Mr. Powell: I am surprised that the Paymaster General can adopt an attitude of complacency when he is announcing such figures to the House. In Ogmore, the unemployment figure was 3·7 per cent. in 1979. It is now 18·7 per cent., and in some areas 25 per cent. of the work force are out of work. When will the Minister listen to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who suggested in his speech last weekend that if we began


to spend money on roads, schools, hospitals, sewers and other social improvements, unemployment might be substantially reduced? The unemployment figure is as frightening to my constituents as was the Prime Minister's speech last night, when she said that she would continue in office. If she continues in office much longer, everybody will be unemployed by the time she leaves it.

Mr. Clarke: There has been a steady growth in employment since 1983 — [Interruption]. Of course there has. Obviously we need to generate more employment to tackle the problem. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has been affected by coal mining closures. I do not know to what extent he believes that Ogmore's problems will be solved by spending more money on roads, schools, houses and the other projects which his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to think will solve all our problems. I trust that the work of the new enterprise agency and the training schemes that are being promoted by the National Coal Board in South Wales will have the effect of stimulating again the economy of the valleys.

Mr. Allen McKay: When does the Paymaster General expect the growth in employment to reach my constituency where unemployment is over 20 per cent.? When does he expect the unemployment figure to peak, and at what figure? When does he expect that figure to return to the level at which it stood in 1979?

Mr. Clarke: The number of people who are being placed in jobs by our jobcentre in the Barnsley travel-to-work area is increasing substantially, although it needs to be further increased. By coincidence, the hon. Gentleman also represents a coal mining constituency. I hope that he will encourage his constituents to take more advantage than they have done so far of the training oportunities that are provided by our skillcentres, financed by the National Coal Board, which will help to revive the economy of the area.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend absolutely certain that these figures are accurate? In Bracknell in my constituency 7 per cent. of the work force is allegedly unemployed, yet at the jobcentre there is a large number of unfilled vacancies. All the employers express concern that they cannot find the right kind of people for the jobs for which they advertise.

Mr. Clarke: I am satisfied that the figures are accurate when people understand clearly what they represent. We are always quite clear when we say what it is that we are measuring. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are large parts of the country, particularly in the south and in the midlands, where it is perplexing to find that there are large numbers of unemployed people when employers say that they are short of labour. When we try out new schemes in pilot areas, we discover that considerable success can be achieved by directing the long-term unemployed to jobs or to training after they have been contacted and given help and support.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend estimate how many people would price themselves into work if the wages councils were to be abolished?

Mr. Clarke: The estimates vary between 8,000 and 300,000. We have made proposals for the reform of the wages councils, but I agree with my hon. Friend that when

setting the rate of pay for jobs one must take into account the fact that people will be paid for jobs so long as their pay does not exceed the value that they add to the business.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell my constituents in the county of Gwynedd, where unemployment is over 20 per cent., and where there have been no coalmine closures, how countries such as Sweden and Norway are able to keep their unemployment at a fraction of ours and why we have failed completely to bring ours down?

Mr. Clarke: I do not have time to debate the experience of Sweden, which is not quite so straightforward and untroubled as the hon. Gentleman implies. The problem of rising unemployment exists throughout western Europe. Many countries are taking the same measures as ourselves, and many of them are imitating the measures that we have taken on both the economic and employment fronts. We are creating more new employment in this country than is being created in the rest of the European Community put together.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one can make sense of the unemployment statistics only if one looks at the employment statistics? If one person in seven is unemployed, it means that 86 per cent. of the work force are employed, and that this country has a greater proportion of its work force in work than any other European country.—[Interruption.] Should not my right hon. and learned Friend be emphasising that point as well?

Mr. Clarke: Shouts drowned my hon. Friend's valuable last point, which is that a higher proportion of people are in work in this country than in any other western European country. It is also the case, of course, that the size of our labour force is still growing, which is why, although we are creating many new jobs, we are still having difficulty in getting on top of the unemployment figures.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Paymaster General accept that the growth in population during the period for which the Labour party was in office was twice as great as in this Government's period of office? I ask him this simple question. While most of the increases in jobs have been in part-time equivalents, can he put that into full-time equivalents and accept, as the Bank of England does, that, with the increase in jobs which we have seen since 1983, it would take over 50 years to reach the level of employment that his Government inherited in 1979?

Mr. Clarke: Demography, I agree, has acted against both Governments, Labour and Conservative. There is a growth in the labour market, it is continuing, and it will end, I think, in three or four years' time. The fact remains that the Labour Government presided over a doubling in the rate of unemployment and left us deep in a recession and a financial and economic crisis which helped to make unemployment worse in the two years that followed. I cannot, without notice, turn part-time figures into full-time equivalents. The growth in part-time employment in the country goes back way into the 1970s. There has been a growth in part-time employment here and in other countries. It reflects changing social patterns. It is no good the hon. Gentleman trying to dismiss part-time employment, which is wanted by many people, as though part-time employees are not genuinely in jobs.

Mr. Park: asked the Paymaster General what is his estimate of the total number of people currently in full-time employment; and what were the comparable figures for May 1979.

Mr. Lang: Estimates of full-time and part-time male employees in employment are not separately available for these dates. There were 16,450,000 male employees and female full-time employees in employment in Great Britain in September 1985. The comparable figure for June 1979 was 18,777,000.

Mr. Park: We are frequently told in the House about a recovery, which has apparently been going on for several years. When will this recovery make an impact on the employment figures, since in my constituency there are areas where unemployment levels are at 36 per cent.?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member is unduly gloomy, because the information for which he asks paints an incomplete picture. His question ignores the fact that part-time female jobs are up over 500,000 since the 1979 election, and the numbers of self-employed are up by some 750,000 since June 1979.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend recognise the fact that if it were not for the huge increase in the size of the work force over the past three or four years, unemployment would be substantially lower than it is now? Why does he think that Opposition Members are not prepared to recognise this?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The labour market has increased by some 1·75 million in the last decade. The Opposition ought to recognise that fact.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that unemployment in the north-west of England is considerably above the national average and is under further threat because of the very weak MFA which has been negotiated by his Government, as is well known to some of the members of his ministerial staff?

Mr. Lang: I quite understand that there are areas in the country where the unemployment problem is very much more serious than it is in others. That is why the Government have designed a wide range of schemes to try to tackle the deep-rooted problems.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that the long-term potential for employment in the country is probably better now than it has ever been for the last 25 years because of the Government's policy relating to inflation and trade union reform? Will he do his best to ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not introduce any measures in the Budget, such as increasing dramatically excise and tax on hydrocarbons, which might prejudice the future potential for employment?

Mr. Lang: I note my hon. Friend's point and will certainly refer it to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that keeping the inflation rate down is of predominant importance, and is crucial in creating new employment.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Leighton: asked the Paymaster General what will be the qualifications that trainees receive after completion of the two-year YTS.

Mr. Trippier: Our aim is that all YTS trainees should have the opportunity to obtain or work towards a recognised vocational qualification. To help in this aim, we are establishing a new YTS certification board whose job it will be to ensure that there are relevant qualifications suitable for trainees of all abilities.

Mr. Leighton: Following the advertising campaign referred to earlier, may I ask whether the Minister has any evidence that the Japanese are frightened by the progress of YTS in Britain? Will he admit that, were that to be the case, the scheme would have to reach the level of higher education? Does he agree that the credibility of YTS will depend upon the quality of training? Can he give us an assurance that, after two years' YTS, each trainee will receive a valuable qualification which will be a module towards a recognised vocational qualification?

Mr. Trippier: I do not know whether the Japanese are frightened by YTS, but they will be as impressed with it as are Conservative Members. Of course we are anxious that all people on the YTS scheme should have a certificate. They should receive certificates in the form that I mentioned in reply to an earlier question. As a result of the appointment of the new certification board, we hope to improve the qualification. In addition to the certificate, 39 per cent. of those who complete YTS courses qualify for other qualifications.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks for the central role that he played in a highly successful conference on education and training which I promoted in my constituency yesterday?

Mr. Rogers: Get off your knees.

Mr. Greenway: Get off your knees. Does my hon. Friend agree that a central message from the conference was that education and training should be brought together? What will he do towards that end?

Mr. Trippier: That question gives me the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on organising a seminar in his constituency, which was yet another example of what can be done. He brought together industrialists and educationists, which is a major theme of Industry Year 1986.

Ms. Richardson: Does the Minister recognise that young women on YTS courses do not always get the same, limited, training as do young men, and that they often emerge with fewer qualifications? What can he do to improve this scheme and their chances?

Mr. Trippier: I am anxious to meet the point that the hon. Lady draws to my attention. I hope that the certification board will do that, but I shall consider that problem. If she wishes to raise specific examples with me, I shall be happy to consider them.

Young Worker Scheme

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Paymaster General what is the best available estimate of the number of new jobs which were created for young people as a result of the wage cuts induced by the young worker scheme; and how many of these were previously adult jobs.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: About 90,000 new jobs for young people resulted directly from the scheme, according to our latest estimates. None of this number involved the substitution of young people in place of older workers.

Mr. Fraser: Does not the evidence given to the Select Committee, including that from the Minister's Department, show that about 80 per cent. of the jobs that were found for young people came from older people? Is there not a more constructive way of providing jobs than throwing someone else off the roundabout?

Mr. Clarke: The figure that I gave is the one that we calculated, making allowance for any displacement that is caused by such a scheme. It was highly successful and helped to contribute to the fact that unemployment among young people has been decreasing steadily for the past three years.

Ms. Clare Short: The Paymaster General is misleading the House, I am sure inadvertently. The evidence shows clearly that about 80 per cent. of the jobs that were subsidised would have existed anyway. Of the 10 per cent. of new jobs for young people, the overwhelming majority were adults' jobs. Does the Minister concede that, given those facts, his claim that exempting youngsters from the protection of wages councils will generate jobs is palpably false?

Mr. Clarke: All that I can say in response to the hon. Lady is that it depends on which facts and evidence one takes into account. The figure that I gave was reached by those who provided most of the material for the study of the young workers' scheme. After making allowances for inevitable displacement, the scheme created 90,000 new jobs. There is clear evidence of a reduction in youth unemployment, largely because we are returning to more realistic pay levels for school leavers and because of the growth of the two-year youth training scheme.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Hicks: asked the Paymaster General what is the estimated number of new job opportunities currently being created each month; what was the corresponding figure 12 months ago; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The latest available estimates show that there was a net increase of 10,000 monthly in the employed labour force during the third quarter of 1985. This compares with an average monthly increase of 23,000 in the same period 12 months ago. There have now been 10 successive quarterly rises in the number of jobs, leading to a net increase of 709,000 since March 1983.

Mr. Hicks: I welcome that trend, but does my hon. Friend agree that, because of job losses, we must have still greater investment in labour-intensive activities such as house building and home improvements, and that the Government must accept their responsibility in those areas?

Mr. Lang: I note what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that he would not want to underestimate the amount of public and private capital expenditure that is taking place and that he agrees that the overriding concern must be to keep inflation low, as inflation destroys many jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Gould: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagments for Tuesday 18 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Turkey.

Mr. Gould: Will the Prime Minister confirm what she appeared to say on television last night— that a firm such as Land Rover must choose between being British and being successful? Is it this despair about the future of British industries which makes her so keen to act as a broker for American interests in the proposed sale of Land Rover?

The Prime Minister: I am anxious that there should be good jobs here in companies here which have a great future. I am anxious that Land Rover and Freight Rover should have as big a market and as big a distribution service as possible, and I believe that we must consider the bids that have been made.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate Balfour Beatty on the successful conclusion of a joint venture with Japan to build a hydroelectric plant in Sri Lanka? Is this not a way forward in which we can balance our substantial trade imbalance with Japan and help the developing world?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that this will be the second dam project with which we have assisted in Sri Lanka. The earlier project on the Victoria dam was extremely successful. The present one has been assisted by overseas aid and will bring great prosperity to Sri Lanka. I hope that it augurs well that we are cooperating with Japan.

Mr. Steel: As it now seems clear that going ahead with the Trident missile programme means jeopardising a successful deal between the United States and the Soviet Union on nuclear weapons in Europe, will the Prime Minister tell our American allies that she is willing to give up this expensive and unilateral escalation of British nuclear firepower?

The Prime Minister: No. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has fallen for Soviet Union propaganda. There is no question of Britain giving up her independent nuclear deterrent, and there is no question of the Trident programme being involved.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as hon. Members enjoy freedom of speech and the right to reply in this place, that same right should be allowed to hon. Members in universities and places of further education?

The Prime Minister: The whole House will sympathise with my hon. Friend on the nasty incidents that he has experienced. I believe and hope that the whole House agrees that upholding freedom of speech in our institutions of higher education is vital and that we would like to express our view to that effect. I hope that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals will make strenuous efforts to ensure that that right is upheld, so that hon. Members can speak freely at universities. Freedom of speech consists of being able to say things that are not acceptable to everyone.

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Prime Minister recognise that what is happening in the British computer industry, in Westland, and perhaps even in British Leyland are not isolated events, but are part of a determined effort by American industrial power to influence what happens in British industry? Have the Government any policy to counter that?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to the British computer industry, I hope he realises that the Government have done a good deal to help ICL during its days of difficulty. I hope he will also recognise that many American companies have provided jobs, especially in development areas. I hope he will do nothing to stop that process.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to condemn the violence and intimidation that are occurring on the picket lines at Wapping, particularly against the police? Will she try to persuade the leaders of SOGAT '82 and the National Graphical Association to take a leaf out of the book of the Leader of the Opposition and root out some of the extremists in their organisations?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We totally condemn the violence that has been occurring, and which we saw on the television screens on Saturday night, arising from the demonstrations outside Wapping. We understand that the majority were not thought to be printers. Nevertheless, it is disgraceful that they should attack the police. We totally support the police.

Mr. Kinnock: In condemning violence wherever it occurs, will the Prime Minister also acknowledge the contribution made by the leaders of SOGAT and the NGA to try to stop violence, and the way in which they have roundly condemned those who bring their unions and their activities into disrepute? When seven years of the Prime Minister's continuing policies have brought record and rising unemployment, record real interest rates, a record manufacturing trade deficit and a record tax burden, and when she tells the country that she will not change, is she not showing complete contempt for the people?

The Prime Minister: I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I am glad that he totally condemns violence — I hope on each and every picket line or demonstration where it occurs. I should be grateful if he would confirm that. I also point out that this Administration have carried out policies that have led to a record standard of living, record production and output, record expenditure on and a record number of patients treated under, the Health Service and a record standard of living for pensioners.

Mr. Kinnock: Looking at all of industry and at unemployment, is not the biggest record that of the wreckage that the right hon. Lady has brought?

The Prime Minister: In the last two years, as the right hon. Gentleman will have heard from questions shortly before Prime Minister's Question Time, a record number of jobs have been created. We have a better record than any other country in Europe, with 700,000 jobs in the last two years. That, together with efficient industry, is the way to get more jobs.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Argentine Members of Parliament who are visiting Britain should be made to feel extremely welcome, but told that sovereignty is not available for discussion, and that the way forward between our two countries is to negotiate the commercial exploitation of the area around the Falkland Islands?

The Prime Minister: I understand that Argentine Members of Parliament are in this country. We have done our best as a Government to restore commercial relations with Argentine to a normal basis, but our efforts have not met with reciprocation from the Argentine. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the sovereignty of the Falklands is not negotiable and that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are and will remain paramount.

Afghanistan

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Prime Minister if she will seek to meet President Babrak Karmal to discuss his proposals for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have no wish to meet the leader of a regime which depends on an occupying force of 115,000 Soviet troops for its survival.

Mr. Brown: While the Prime Minister's knee jerk response was to be expected, does she not realise that a negotiated settlement is possible provided her Government stop aiding the counter-revolutionaries, which is now costing this country over £3 million per year—and it has not been rate-capped? More important, does she not appreciate that Karmal can use tribal power against Zia?
The problems of Afghanistan will be small indeed compared to the problems of Pakistan. I suggest — [Interruption.]—that the sooner a settlement is reached the better.

The Prime Minister: People who are citizens of an occupied country have a right to fight for their country. If the hon. Gentleman really wants peace, he should assist the Secretary-General's efforts to find a settlement by negotiating the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan without more ado.

Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend offer her congratulations to the valiant people of Afghanistan on their six-year fight for national liberation against the most powerful war machine in the world? Will she confirm that there is nothing standing in the way of the Soviet Union withdrawing its forces, and that there is nothing to discuss with Mr. Babrak Karmal except possibly which country might offer him asylum once the Soviet forces have gone?

The Prime Minister: Nothing must deflect us from the important task of securing the withdrawal of Soviet occupying troops from Afghanistan. I appreciate what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. James Lamond: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a rare, definitive question.

Mr. Lamond: In the nauseating performance that we had to put up with on "Panorama" last night, was it necessary for the Prime Minister to make statements such as those that she has made today? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Afghanistan.

Mr. Lamond: My question is about Afghanistan. The right hon. Lady says that she believes that people in an occupied country are entitled to fight for their freedom. Does the Prime Minister extend that same freedom to the people of South Africa, who are living in an occupied country, and whose leader, Nelson Mandela, has been in prison for more than 20 years?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the two countries are totally dissimilar. People of all colours in South Africa, whether white, coloured, Indian or black have a right to be there, and we believe that they should all have a right to take part in the government of their country. We deplore violence in that country as a means to that end.

Mr. Terlezki: In an excellent television programme we saw Mr. Shcharansky reunited with his dear wife after 12 years of separation. On Afghanistan, does my right hon. Friend not believe that it is high time this House told Mr. Gorbachev to withdraw his 115,000 troops from Afghanistan and take them back to where they belong, in the Soviet Union, and to free Afghan people so that they can fulfil their own destiny in their own country?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend has so aptly said.

Mr. Nellist: Given the Prime Minister's sudden attack of double standards over Afghanistan and South Africa, how does she feel about American intervention in Central America?

The Prime Minister: I had hoped that even the hon. Gentleman would agree that 115,000 Soviet occupying forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan. Apparently he does not.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lloyd: Which major industrial power would consider selling off its last significant domestic car producer to a foreign power? Does the right hon. Lady think that it is part of popular capitalism that she should act as a broker for the United States?

The Prime Minister: Austin Rover is a mass car producer. It has only 4 per cent. of the European market compared with other mass car producers, such as Renault, Volkswagen, Fiat, Ford and General Motors, which have between 10 and 12 per cent. of the market. Austin Rover therefore has difficulty in competing. That is the measure of the task. I hope that the company will succeed in obtaining more of the market. If there is a British bid for Austin Rover, we shall look at it carefully.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marlow: Can my right hon. Friend hazard a guess as to why Labour Members, and perhaps the odd Conservative Member, seem to think that there is something wrong with outward investment from Britain because, they say, it destroys jobs in this country, and yet at the same time they complain about inward investment, whether by General Motors, Sikorsky or any other such company?

The Prime Minister: I note my hon. Friend's cogent point. When we had inward investment, for example, with Nissan, half the Labour Members wanted the investment to go to their constituencies. They forget all that now.

British Ferries Ltd.

Mr. Robert Hughes: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the continuing difficulties of British Ferries Ltd. to negotiate access to the Belgian port of Zeebrugge and what reciprocal action he intends to take under sections 14 and 15 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): British Ferries Sealink has been in close touch with my Department about its wish to serve Zeebrugge, and I am therefore well aware of these problems. My noble Friend the Minister for shipping and I have discussed the problem with the Belgian Minister of Communications, and my officials have been in frequent and urgent contact with their Belgian counterparts. I cannot understand why the port of Zeebrugge has not responded to British Ferries' request for access. Depending on future events, I remain ready to act in support of British interests. At present, I have not ruled out any course of action.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that British Ferries was banned from Ostend? Does he agree that the lack of faith appears to be on the side of the Belgian port authorities rather than Sealink? Why has the right hon. Gentleman apparently agreed to European Ferries marketing the operations of British Ferries in Britain—the Regie des Transports Maritime operations —given that that is part of the move to freeze Sealink out of Belgium?
Is it not absolutely clear that we are dealing with restraints on trade imposed by the Belgians? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only way in which we can deal with this problem is by taking action under sections 14 and 15 of the Merchant Shipping Act and banning Belgian ferries from Britain? Will he confirm that he can do that immediately without parliamentary approval? Does he agree that this action could last for 28 days by which time the matter would surely be resolved? Will he act to save the jobs of the 250 seafarers that are clearly at risk because of this dispute?

Mr. Ridley: I confirm that, when European Ferries and RMT came together, it resulted in the exclusion of British Ferries from Ostend. I have made every conceivable effort to help British Ferries gain access to the port of Zeebrugge. I am convinced from my conversations with the Belgian Minister of Communications that the Belgian Government are not frustrating its efforts. European Ferries is entitled to market its service in any way it wishes. What is offensive is the action to deny another competitor—British Ferries—the right to serve a Belgian port. That is the point on which I have concentrated throughout.
I confirm that I remain able to use section 14, if necessary. I understand that British Ferries may be modifying its proposed operation into Zeebrugge, which could change the situation. That is why it is difficult to take decisions before the position has been clarified.

Mr. Peter Rees: My right hon. Friend knows about my continuing interest and concern in this matter. Does he regard the exclusion of a British ferry company from a Belgian port, such as Zeebrugge or Ostend, to be in breach of the fundamental principles and rules of the European Community?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, subject to the fact that it is operationally possible. There are operational difficulties which we have done our best to help the Belgians to solve. If British Ferries were to change its operational requirement, that would set up a new position, making matters more difficult. I remain determined to ensure that Belgian ports should be open to us if our ports are open to Belgian ferries.

Mr. David Alton: Have the Government made representations via the European Commission and, if not, have they any intention of doing so?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. This is a bilateral matter.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: For how long has the Secretary of State been in contact with the Belgian Government over this matter? Seamen's jobs are at stake and we are most anxious to see a speedy resolution. If necessary, we expect strong action from the Government.

Mr. Ridley: The matter has been going on since before Christmas. We have been frequently in touch with the Belgians at ministerial and official level. If necessary, I shall make contact again with my opposite number as soon as it is clear what the problem is. British Ferries submitted details of its operational plans a fortnight ago to Zeebrugge harbour. It has not yet received an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. I regard that as thoroughly unsatisfactory and discourteous. In view of the fact that British jobs are involved as well as ferry services to the Continent, I am taking the closest personal interest in the matter.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Is it not time that the Ministry took sterner action in view of the actions of the Belgian ports? They are not acting in the spirit and intent of agreements. I reinforce the point made by the Secretary of State that there has been more than one letter of communication between Sealink and the Belgian authorities. Every communication seems to be ignored.

Mr. Ridley: I welcome the interest of the House in this matter. Hon. Members' expressions of impatience at this treatment will strengthen my hand in achieving an early settlement.

Mr. Robin Squire: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is now a monopoly operating on any route between Belgium and Britain? Of its very nature, that must be unacceptable.

Mr. Ridley: That is another reason why I remain determined to find a solution to ensure that competition will continue between the English coast and the Belgian coast.

Mr. Bill Michie: As the Secretary of State has been aware of the problem since before Christmas and still has not been able to discover how to solve it, surely he should make a statement about when he is likely to implement the powers vested in him.

Mr. Ridley: It is a moving position and it is not one that has not changed. I would be happier to give an affirmative date for taking action if I were clear that British Ferries was not going to change its operational plans, thus changing the position.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have only two occasions, each of 15 minutes, during any working week when we can put questions to the Prime Minister. That is a maximum of 30 minutes in which to question the Prime Minister on her responsibilities for the nation's welfare. In view of today's display in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) when the Government Benches responded with a gesture clearly designed blatantly to waste time, is it possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to approach the appropriate authorities and, in accordance with the Rugby Football Union or the Football Association, seek some form of injury time that you might award at the end of Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not give my reasons, but he may have noticed that today Prime Minister's questions continued until 3.31 pm. That was injury time.

Conventions of the House

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) raised a point of order criticising me for having broken one of the conventions of the House. You will also recall that since I was elected to Parliament I have always been a great upholder of our conventions, traditions and, indeed, of you, Mr. Speaker.
Where the safety of children is involved, there may be times when one cannot act speedily and observe the niceties of the workings of the House. I spoke out on a particular issue, but not from the information from only one informant. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth to be criticised for protecting children by the hon. Gentleman who introduced members of the IRA into the House.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This sort of exchange does not help our proceedings. I dealt with the matter yesterday. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) was present. Irrespective of the speed with which events occur, the conventions of the House are important.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it on order for the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) to mislead the House about my remarks yesterday? I criticised him, not for not informing me of what he was doing in my constituency, although that would have been the decent thing to do, but for irresponsibly passing unfounded allegations to the media, who then crawled all over an estate and caused a great deal of hardship and hurt to the people of the area. It is the hon. Gentleman's irresponsible behaviour which has upset the residents of the area. They are demanding strongly that he visits the estate and apologises publicly to them.

Mr. Speaker: There is an early-day motion on the Order Paper about the matter, and that is the right way to deal with it.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It should go on record that this is not the first time that this has happened. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) knows of a similar incident in my constituency when I received complaints from a clergyman on behalf of his parishioners protesting about the hon. Gentleman's conduct, which I raised in the House. It is time that the hon. Gentleman observed the courtesy of informing the hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall give the hon. Gentleman one more opportunity, but not to prolong the matter.

Mr. Dickens: I shall not detain the House. I wish to place on record the fact that arrests and prosecutions have resulted from information that I have provided in the past.

Greater London County Hall

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the disposal of Greater London County Hall by the London Residuary Body until after 31st December 1988; to exempt Greater London County Hall from the provisions of section 100 of the Local Government Act 1985; and for connected purposes.
There are two main elements to the Bill. The first relates to the importance of the building that is Greater London county hall, and the second to the importance that it has had, has at present and can have in future as a building to serve the people of London, our capital city and the nation as a whole.
I should like to begin with a brief description of the building. County hall was built on a site which was previously derelict marshland that was acquired by the London county council in 1905. An architectural competition was held in 1907 and a unanimous choice was made by the assessors that the architect, Mr. Ralph Knott, should design a building to house London administration.
That scheme was accepted in February 1908 and thereafter construction began. The foundation stone of the main building was laid by His Majesty King George V in 1912 and the building was opened by the King in 1922. The building was completed in 1933.
There are also ancillary buildings, additional blocks other than the main building. Hon. Members will know that the whole structure was completed as the headquarters for the administration of London. That event was commemorated by a visit and an unveiling by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in November 1963. Since the passing of London administration from the London county council to the Greater London council, the building has remained as the centre administering London's affairs. County hall is also well known to hon. Members, as it houses the Inner London education authority.
The building is clearly of architectural importance. It was made a grade II listed building by the Minister of Works in 1951, the year I was born. The main reasons which justified that decision were the exterior and the principal floor. However, the whole building is listed.
Certain parts of the building are without doubt exceptional as contributions to the heritage of the city of London and of the country. The west door and the chairs behind the west door of the council chamber are made of oak believed to be some thousands of years old. The chamber walls are marble and the pillars were quarried in the Italian Alps. There is also Belgian marble in the building.
The whole building, the chamber, the reception areas and many of the rooms on the principal floor make up a building which Londoners have, from its erection, been proud to see as their administrative headquarters. At the head of the main staircase there are the names and coats of arms of successive lords lieutenant of the county of London since 1889. Inside the building there are conference rooms, committee rooms, exhibition halls and interview rooms as well as all the other ancillary, administrative offices. There is a ceremonial suite and a members' terrace.
The building has always been recognised for its importance and was most recently discussed in the Local

Government Bill which became the Local Government Act 1985. During the Bill's passage, two matters were raised which I hope mean that what I ask today is in accord with the information given in the Committee at the time.
Under section 62 of the Act, the residuary property of the GLC, including county hall, passes to the residuary body which will take over that function on 1 April 1986. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)— accepted the importance of the building and that there should be no hasty decision about its future use. He said:
The important point is that County Hall should be put to good use. It will be the responsibility of the London residuary body to ensure that that happens … They and the staff of the residuary body will need to continue in occupation for a time. Our intention is that at an early stage the London residuary body will institute a feasibility study of the possible future uses of the building.
The Under-Secretary of State later said:
The freeholds of factory estates will transfer to the residuary body. The procedure for the county halls is roughly the same. They would transfer to the residuary body which would then consult and carry out a feasibility study on the best future use for that building."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 28 February 1985; c. 1818].
I seek time for the London ratepayers—the people who pay for the building — local government and Parliament to consult properly and for the London Residuary Body to be properly appraised of the uses to which people wish the building to be put.
My Bill aims to keep the building in the hands of the London Residuary Body until 31 December 1988. That gives two and a half years in which the building could be used. It should not be kept in mothballs. As the law stands, it could be sold after 1 April. That would go not just against the spirit of what the Government intended when they introduced the Bill but against the wishes of the vast majority of Londoners, people interested in architecture, and the people of Britain.
My Bill would prevent the immediate sale of county hall. It would preserve it in public ownership for people to make a considered judgment about its future, separate from the issue of abolition. This is the issue which will confront people immediately. My Bill would give adeqate time for Parliament, local government and public bodies to consider whether they have a use for county hall before a decision is taken which could irreversibly lose it to the public domain.
The Bill would not, because it could not, prevent such a decision, but nor would it preserve county hall in mothballs. In the interim, the London Residuary Body would be under a duty to offer the building for use by bodies such as ILEA, the London joint and co-ordinating comittees and all other regional and public bodies which might be interested in it. I am not entirely serious when I say that it could possibly be used until our additional buildings are completed. It would help with the inadequate accommodation provided for hon. Members in this building
The Bill's purpose is to give the public services a chance to exercise a claim to the site and this historic, listed and important building. It would impose that duty on the London Residuary Body.
There are one or two pragmatic reasons for such a move. The London Residuary Body will employ many people. They must be housed. ILEA will continue, although in a new form. The county hall computer could


not be easily moved. If ILEA and other bodies were to move out of the main building, many of the functional aspects of the complex would remain in the main building —the boiler house, the kitchens and the like.
The inscriptions around the council chamber and elsewhere signify that the building should remain in public ownership. The building has been converted to be as available as possible to many people.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Even the SDP.

Mr. Hughes: I am being tempted from behind. It would be available to all the political parties. Disabled people can get in easily to use the building.
When it was announced that I would be seeking leave to introduce the Bill, I received a letter, and I shall end by quoting from it.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Only one?

Mr. Hughes: I have received several letters, but I shall quote from this one which comes from someone in Basildon:
Dear Simon, subject County Hall"—
[Interruption.] The letter is not from someone I have ever met, a relative, or a friend—
I share your concern over the future of County Hall. So much so that I wrote a letter to the Private Secretary to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales over this same issue. He replied knowing of the Prince's deep concern over this important building in the capital. What worries me is that at some future date some speculator will come along and buy up the whole shooting match and, to quote one of the Prince's favourite terms `put up some preposterous'"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is straying. We never introduce the Royal Family in support of our arguments in this place.

Mr. Hughes: I strayed in quoting. I apologise, as I did not propose to suggest that the Royal Family were unanimously behind me, although I hope that they would be. The writer continued by reminding us how county hall grew out of what was a swampy flooded Thames river site in the 1920s. He revealed that he originally came from the best constituency of all, my own, Southwark and Bermondsey. The writer concluded that, if we froze the issue for two years, we would
give time for the authorities to make up their minds as to what will happen to that fine building in the future".
I hope that the House will give us the time to make the best decision about an important building in the interests of Londoners, ratepayers and the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Edward Leigh.

GREATER LONDON COUNTY HALL

Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the disposal of Greater London County Hall by the London Residuary Body until after 31st December 1988; to exempt Greater London County Hall from the provisions of section 100 of the Local Government Act 1985; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 April and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

Orders of the Day — Drug Trafficking Offences Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

CASES IN WHICH RESTRAINT ORDERS AND CHARGING ORDERS MAY BE MADE

'(1) The powers conferred on the High Court by sections 6(1) and 7(1) of this Act are exercisable where—

(a) proceedings have been instituted in England and Wales against the defendant for a drug trafficking offence,
(b) the proceedings have not been concluded, and
(c) the court is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant has benefited from drug trafficking.

(2) Those powers are also exercisable where the court is satisfied—

(a) that an information is to be laid under section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 that a person has or is suspected of having committed a drug trafficking offence, and
(b) that there is reasonable cause to believe that he has benefited from drug trafficking.

(3) For the purposes of sections 6 and 7 of this Act, at any time when those powers are exercisable by virtue only of subsection (2) above—

(a) references in this Act to the defendant shall be construed as references to the person referred to in subsection (2)(a) above,
(b) references in this Act to the prosecuting authority shall be construed as references to the person who the court is satisfied is to have the conduct of the proposed proceedings, and
(c) references in this Act to property available in respect of the defendant shall be construed as if, immediately before that time, proceedings had been instituted against the person referred to in subsection (2)(a) above for a drug trafficking offence.

(4) Where the court has made an order under section 6(1) or 7(1) of this Act by virtue of subsection (2) above, the court shall discharge the order if the proposed proceedings are not instituted within such time as the court considers reasonable.'.—[Mellor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 8 to 17.

Mr. Mellor: Perhaps I may set the scene for this afternoon's discussion. The Bill is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It received an enthusiastic Second Reading and went into Committee. The evidence of the considerable good will that flows towards the Bill is the fact that the Bill completed its Committee stage in two sittings.
A number of significant issues were raised during those debates, and I gave a range of undertakings. I said that the Government would reflect on those issues and return to them on Report. That will be done either by amendments or by explanation as to why, in our judgment, amendments were not moved or, on reflection, were not desirable. The fruits of that reconsideration are in the two new clauses and a number of amendments in my name which we shall deal with this afternoon.


There are certain other matters which were the subject of detailed discussion in Committee but which are not to be found in any of the amendments. I should like to take the opportunity on Third Reading to deal with the reasons why those matters have not been canvassed. I shall explain why we have, on reflection, decided that no change is needed or, as a result of further consideration, that it is not practicable at this stage to conclude our deliberations. I ask the indulgence of the House. I suggest that these matters should be addressed to another place. Of course, we would have the opportunity to reconsider the issue when the Bill returns.
In that context I mention clause 15 and the precise terms of the new laundering offence which were the subject of a good deal of discussion. Also, on Third Reading, I should like to consider the position in Scotland, which was of interest to a number of Scottish Members. The problems are first, the applicability of the Bill to Scotland and, secondly, the extent to which Scottish law will need to be changed to reflect the changes that have been made in England and Wales. It has not been possible simply to apply the provisions of the Bill to Scotland, because the Bill draws on the established parts of the English and Welsh legal system which are not common to the different legal system in Scotland. Some kind of dovetailing must be effected between the two systems, and that has been the subject of further active consideration.
4 pm
Hon. Members may recall that last Friday week a private notice question was raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who leads for the Opposition on home affairs matters. He asked about cocaine sniffing kits and invited the Government to give urgent attention to this matter. In response not only to that question, but to the obviously very widespread feeling in the House, I said that action should be considered urgently to clarify whether any provision in the present law could properly deal with this problem. In the event that the answer to that was in the negative, I said that we would consider whether a new provision could be drafted that might be suitable for incorporation in the Bill.
We have taken those discussions forward and further progress has been made. I shall describe that on Third Reading. I hope that there will be an opportunity for some discussion not outwith the rules of order as to whether it might be possible to make such changes to the Bill in the other place as would give effect to the widespread public feeling against retailers who seek to exploit the awful habit of taking cocaine by selling kits to facilitate that habit.
New clause 2 is a major new clause designed to meet an important point made in Committee by a number of hon. Members. I particularly mention the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), whom I am pleased to see in this place. In Committee and on Second Reading it was suggested that restraint and charging orders should be available before the institution of proceedings. As it stands, the Bill provides that the appropriate point at which application should be made to a High Court judge is either when a warrant for arrest has been granted, even though the application might be made before the warrant was executed, or, when arrest took place without a warrant, at that point.
It was forcefully stated by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and other hon. Members that it was inappropriate to tie this arrangement so closely to the issue of proceedings, on the basis that that might be rather late in the day to trigger an important power in the Bill. It might be at such a late stage that the potential defendant, the suspect, would have the opportunity to do what we know people have done in cases under the present arrangements. When they think that they are liable to be convicted of the offence, they take steps to divest themselves of their property or to move it out of the jurisdiction so that they cannot be touched by the English courts. We wish to address that point. We have rethought our position, and the new clause gives effect to that rethinking.
In practical terms there must be some link with a late stage in the proceedings, for a number of good reasons. First, it is a serious infringement of individual rights that property should be so restrained. That is a valid point and I do not abstain in any way from the enthusiastic advocacy of the need for this power in which I and many other hon. Members have been engaged for many months. However, this power cannot be given lightly because it is an interference with the liberty of the subject. Because this is a serious matter, we have given the power to a High Court judge, not to lesser judges. It will require the judge to take a balanced view as to whether it would be proper to make the order. Plainly, the only basis on which he can determine that it would be proper is if he is satisfied, on the merits, that there is evidence that the individual concerned has been involved in drug trafficking and has benefited from it.
New clause 2(1), which deals with the straightforward situation when proceedings have already been started, is not a matter of concern. Instead, clause 2(2) is the nub of the matter. It says that where proceedings have not started:
Those powers are also exercisable where the court is satisfied—

(a) that an information is to be laid under section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 that a person has or is suspected of having committed a drug trafficking offence, and
(b) that there is reasonable cause to believe that he has benefited from drug trafficking."

The police will be able to go to court at the point at which they have their tackle in order and are ready to move against the suspect. That has the advantage of pushing the application a day or two back from the point of arrest so that leakage of information is less likely. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) has, in the work that he has done on the Bill, placed enormous emphasis on the need for there to be due process, even though he has rightly been calling for new powers. We do not want to take advantage of the public climate to introduce legislation that does not have the appropriate checks and balances. We move a few days back from the original decision, but at the same time the judge will not want to make this order unless he is satisfied that the evidence exists.
I hope that I have met the spirit of the lively discussions that took place in Committee and that the new clause will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall not delay the House for more than a few minutes. I am grateful to the Minister for considering and producing so quickly a new and satisfactory provision that brings the civil type Mareva


injunction powers into the criminal jurisdiction relating to drugs. It is crucial that the police should have the opportunity of freezing the assets of the suspect before they move in to make the arrest. We shall find that the use of that power, supervised as it will be by a High Court judge, will lead to the seizure of substantial assets that would not otherwise have been seized. It will have the additional advantage of leading to the obtaining of important evidence that might not otherwise have been obtained against the suspect. 'Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will support the new clause.

Mr. Mellor: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome for the clause. We took very seriously his point about the Hodgson committee and its recommendation. The committee recommended that the order should be available once there was a prima facie case. We thought that there would be some cases in which the establishment of a prima facie case would be a rather stiffer test and therefore make restraint orders available at a later stage than the institution of proceedings. That is why we chose a formulation which is similar but not identical.
Perhaps I might point out, so that the House will know the care with which we have addressed the matter of creating powers with proper checks and balances, that subsection (4) of the new clause is worthy of consideration. It provides that the High Court must discharge any order it makes if, in the event, proceedings are not instituted within what it regards as a reasonable time. I think that it would be oppressive if a High Court judge granted the order sought on the basis that proceedings were shortly to be brought—I suspect that is the basis under which the power in subsection (2) will be exercised—and then found that proceedings had not been issued. There might come a point when a court would properly want to discharge the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

STATEMENTS RELATING TO DRUG TRAFFICKING

`(1) Where—

(a) there is tendered to the Crown Court by the prosecuting authority a statement as to any matters relevant to the determination whether the defendant has benefited from drug trafficking or to the assessment of the value of the proceeds of drug trafficking by him, and
(b) the defendant accepts to any extent any allegation in the statement, the court may, for the purposes of that determination and assessment, treat his acceptance as conclusive of the matters to which it relates.

(2) Where—

(a) a statement is tendered under subsection (1)(a) above, and
(b) the court is satisfied that a copy of the statement has been served on the defendant, the court may require the defendant to indicate to what extent he accepts each allegation in the statement and, so far as he does not accept any such allegation, to indicate any matters he proposes to rely on.

(3) If the defendant fails in any respect to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above he may be treated for the purposes of this section as accepting every allegation in the statement apart from—

(a) any allegation in respect of which he has complied with the requirement, and
(b) any allegation that he has benefited from drug trafficking or that any payment or other reward is the proceeds of drug trafficking by him.

(4) Where—


(a) there is tendered to the Crown Court by the defendant a statement as to any matters relevant to determining the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made from property available in respect of the defendant, and
(b) the prosecuting authority accepts to any extent any allegation in the statement, the court may, for the purposes of that determination, treat the acceptance by the prosecuting authority as conclusive of the matters to which it relates.

(5) An allegation may be accepted or a matter indicated for the purposes of this section either—

(a) orally before the court, or
(b) in writing in accordance with Crown Court Rules.

(6) No acceptance by the defendant under this section that any payment or other reward is the proceeds of drug trafficking by him shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings for an offence.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 26 to 30.

Mr. Mellor: This is another substantial new clause which again emanates from the helpful discussion we had in Committee. It particularly focuses on points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my saying, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) will agree with me, that they had a very good morning in Committee and made a number of sage contributions to which we have responded. I think that the hon. Member for Erdington will agree with me when I say, "If only it were always so".

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Mr. Mellor: Let me finish my little dig, then I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
We were engaged until a very late hour last night on an important measure for animal welfare on which there was a similar measure of agreement between myself and the hon. Member for Erdington. The alliance was somewhat more dismally represented than on this Bill by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who is no substitute for the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. He was aided and abetted by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). They received a fairly dusty response from the House, and I hope that they will attend a master class conducted by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery on how to make an effective contribution to non-partisan Bills. I suspect that they left the Chamber last night feeling rather aggrieved at the reception they received. I know that I can rely on the fairness of the hon. and learned Gentleman to agree that when he raises a good point we always take it seriously.

Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the agreement in relation to my suggestions during the first meeting of the Committee caused me a good deal of anxiety? I shall ensure that his comments, which were very generous and which I appreciate, are not circulated to all alliance Members in this House or I may find that my views are rarely accepted by them.

Mr. Mellor: I should be glad to welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Conservative Benches if the amount of agreement becomes embarrassing to his colleagues.
I shall address myself to the substantial new clause, which I hope is a sensible one. As it is a major new clause, perhaps I shall be forgiven if I go through it with a little care.
The new clause derives from the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in Committee. From the beginning, we had a provision in clause 2(2) enabling the prosecution to tender a statement to the court of what it believed to be the proceeds of the defendant's drug trafficking. The idea behind that is that in straightforward cases, where the amount of the proceeds is known to the prosecution, such a statement, if accepted by the defence, would provide a convenient way for the court to settle the amount of the confiscation order. There will be no need for complex discussions about the offender's property, how much he can prove to be legitimately acquired and so on.
I stress the importance of those practical matters because, as I hope those hon. Members who have practised in the courts will appreciate, it is easy to take a view that is too academic in such matters. Ultimately, we have to recognise that throughout the country hard-pressed and busy courts are sitting.
The Bill will entail a great deal of extra work for the prosecution, defence, judge and those who serve him in court and we have to try to fix upon procedures which will enable business to flow steadily and efficiently in the courts. They should not be procedures which will steamroller through an unjust result but procedures which allow the judge to receive the maximum help from the prosecution and defence. When matters are agreed, they can readily be disposed of. When they are not agreed and there is a dispute, the extent of the dispute can be properly defined and a proper discussion can ensue.
In that spirit, we always intended that the defence should have the right to challenge such a statement from the prosecution. I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman is sending a note to Hansard. Anything that is said about his colleagues must be absolutely right and I can well understand that.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery suggested that the defence should have the right to cross-examine the person making the statement and that the defence should have to give notice of the matters it wished to dispute. That finds its echo in the matters canvassed in the Roskill report on fraud. It is significant that many hon. Members who bring court experience to the debate recognise the need for court procedures, in many respects, to move into the 20th century. The hon. and learned Gentleman managed to achieve that in one subsection, but it has taken the Government a whole new clause. I think that suggests that we find it a more complex matter, but I hope that we have not been prolix for the sake of it.
Before I go through the subsections of the clause, I shall refer to the main points. The intention is still to provide a short cut for the court to settle the amount of the confiscation order. If the defence accepts a prosecution statement and the judge is satisfied, the calculations can end there. It is important to bear in mind that it is the judge who makes the decision and it should not be cooked up between the prosecution and defence. Just as in other issues which are resolved between the parties, we must

leave the judge to intervene, if he feels that an improper arrangement has been made, and say that he will not accept it. If the defence says that it wishes to challenge parts of the statement, the undisputed parts will still provide some common ground and narrow the area about which arguments must be heard. That must be of considerable assistance to the court. The defence will have an express right to challenge and the prosecution will be notified of those matters which are to be disputed.
We have not provided a specific right of cross-examination because in the circumstances envisaged by the proposed new clause that would be part of normal court proceedings. Although the initial prosecution statement might well include hearsay, we think that it would be preferable for any cross-examination to be of witnesses providing first-hand evidence in the interest of the prosecution and the defence. I think that it very much arose out of the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and others.
In the new clause we have included a procedure that was not contained in the original Bill which seems to us to be a useful addition. The defendant is to be able to tender a statement as to the amount which might be realised from his property and from property in the hands of third parties which is liable to confiscation. If all or part of that statement is acceptable to the prosecution, that, too, will ease the task of the court in settling the amount of the confiscation order, particularly where the value of the property available is less than the assessed proceeds.
I intend to look in a little more detail at subsections (1) to (5) and then to make a special point about subsection (6). Subsection (1) provides for the prosecution to tender a statement to the court. The content of the statement is not specified in detail, but it must be relevant to determining whether the defendant has benefited from drug trafficking or to assessing the value of his proceeds.
It is envisaged that the statement would contain the prosecution's estimate of his proceeds, together with, wherever possible, information about the property that is alleged to be those proceeds: its value, the date when it was acquired and, where relevant, the amount and date of any expenditure alleged to have come from such proceeds. The new clause, like the present clause 2(2), does not require the prosecution to tender such a statement and in practice it will do so only in cases where it is satisfied that the full extent of the proceeds is known.
If the defence accepts any or all of the statement, the court may treat the accepted parts of the statement as conclusive. If the defence accepts the statement in full, the court is likely to impose straight away a confiscation order for the amount specified in the statement. That, in a nutshell, is the short procedure. It meets the point of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Erdington that we might be taking too hard a line with the small time user pushers by making these provisions apply to them as well as to the person whom we primarily intend to catch — the large scale drug trafficker.
We rejected the Hodgson committee's advice because we felt that we could not add the further complication of having to prove the value of the proceeds or of the drugs. We felt that this would be an impediment to justice. However, as a matter of common sense, where the individual concerned is a small user dealer — even though anybody who deals in drugs, for whatever motive, is a public menace and has to be dealt with—nobody


will want to bring all of the machinery that is intended to deal with the millionaire who has assets all over the place into play for the person who is operating from squatted property in central London or Glasgow.
Therefore, the subsection (1) procedure provides a short form whereby the prosecution, reading between the lines, will agree on a relatively limited sum which the defence will be able to accept. The matter will be primarily disposed of in relation either to punishment or to the opportunities of treatment for the individual. The financial side will not come into play to any great extent. I hope that subsection (1) of the new clause recognises that there is that kind of straightforward case and that it does not make a straight way crooked, as sometimes we manage to do in the provisions that we introduce. There will, however, be more complicated cases. They are addressed in the subsection.
Subsection (2) allows the court, if it is satisfied that a copy of the statement has been served on the defendant, to require him either to indicate his assent or to dissent from each allegation in the statement and, where he disagrees on any point, to indicate the matters upon which he intends to rely. This will have the advantage of narrowing down the areas of dispute while giving to the defendant the positive right of challenge and to the prosecution notice of how the defendant intends to disprove any element of the statement.
Although the provision sets no particular time limit on the serving of the statement upon the defendant, the court will need to be satisfied that the defendant has had sufficient time to consider it before he is required to give his response. The court will be able to adjourn, if necessary, although the aim of the provision is to try to ensure that these matters should be dealt with as far as possible before rather than after an adjournment. However, one has to recognise that adjournments will be necessary in certain instances. Where guilt or innocence is at issue, one cannot expect matters to be resolved with the consent of the defendant when the issue of whether he is a drug trafficker is contested.
Subsection (3) provides that unless the defendant disputes any allegation he may be regarded as accepting it. However—again I hope that this provides a check and balance safeguard that shows the respect we are paying to established court procedures—silence must not be taken as indicating acceptance of any allegation that he has benefited from drug trafficking or that any particular property is the proceeds of drug trafficking. Thus, if he is silent, he may be deemed to accept a statement that he owns a particular house, that it is worth £75,000 and that he acquired it four years ago; but he may not necessarily be deemed to accept, by silence alone, that it was the proceeds of drug trafficking. I hope that that is a clear and proper distinction. However, I should add that the assumption that it was the proceeds of drug trafficking will operate after he has accepted ownership, but he will retain his right to try to disprove the assumption. That dovetails neatly into the provisions that have already been agreed.
Subsection (4) provides a new and useful procedure whereby the defendant can offer to the court a statement about his property and its value and other property in the hands of third parties which is liable to confiscation. If the prosecution accepts all or part of that statement, the judge may regard that acceptance as conclusive. By providing a basis for settling the amount that might be realised, this procedure will simplify the task of the court in deciding

the proper amount of the confiscation order in those cases where the assets available are less than the estimated proceeds. I imagine that that will be a relatively commonplace experience where someone has used the proceeds to live high on the hog, as is not an uncommon experience.
Subsection (5) allows any acceptance or basis of challenge to be given either orally or in writing. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery sought a specific right of cross-examination by the defence. That is not included in the new clause. In the procedure we propose such cross-examination would, we believe, be part and parcel of normal court proceedings. However, it is envisaged that cross-examination will be allowed of witnesses who have first hand evidence, because that is always the best evidence.
I direct the attention of the House in particular to subsection (6), which might need to be discussed. Subsection (6) provides that acceptance by the defendant that particular property was derived from drug trafficking is not to be admissible in evidence against him in other criminal proceedings. This provision has been included to encourage candour by the defendant so that his proceeds can be accurately and speedily assessed. I emphasise that the concession is limited to making his acceptance inadmissible as evidence. There is no question of providing immunity from prosecution if other independent evidence can be put forward. However, I tender this part of our proposals rather more tentatively than the rest. I have had first and second thoughts about it. There is a balance of advantage that I shall explain.
We want to provide a procedure that can be speedily and sensibly carried forward in the hurly-burly of a busy Crown court. It will be an advantage if every inducement can be given to the defendant after the question of his guilt or innocence has been settled to get the mechanics of the confiscation order out of the way. It is not a question of offering immunity from prosecution. If he says something about the property that is to his detriment in another context it will not be used against him, but if other evidence tends to show that the particular item of property was the proceeds of, say, a bank robbery, that evidence will be admissible against him.
If, however, the consequence was that in the unlikely case of an individual having persuaded the court that the items of property were not the proceeds of drug trafficking but were the proceeds of another crime and it was not possible subsequently to adduce other evidence which established that other offence so that he might be tried and convicted of it, it might seem to be inappropriate that he should have the opportunity to retain possession of property that had been acquired unlawfully, although not through drug trafficking. There is a balance to be struck. I would not hesitate, if it were the opinion of the House that subsection (6) was not appropriate, to give an undertaking to withdraw it in another place.
Subsections (1) to (5), I believe, very much follow the wishes expressed in Committee two weeks ago. I am more troubled about subsection (6). I believe that the balance of convenience for including it in the Bill is a narrow one.
The consequential amendments simply allow for the fact that the House has adopted new clause 3, if that be our decision, and amend the Bill accordingly.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister for bringing to the House and moving what I think is a welcome new clause.
On Second Reading and in Committee I was concerned at what seemed to be an inadequate right for the person appearing before the court for sentence to challenge the statement made by the prosecution before the court as to the extent to which he had benefited from the proceeds of drug trafficking. My concern was particularly for third parties. I must confess that I still have some misgivings, although they may not be strictly relevant under this new clause, as to the protection given in the Bill to third parties.
I accept what the Minister has said about the right to cross-examine. Under the general procedure set out in the Bill, and in this new clause in particular, there will be a right to cross-examine. I particularly welcome the Minister's statement to the effect that the evidence which will be called on behalf of the prosecution will be the best evidence available. I use the term "best evidence" as a term of art, which I think hon. Members will understand. Thus when the evidence is given it is not hearsay evidence and so it is not necessary to challenge hearsay evidence which is often met with a hearsay stonewall answer.
I read subsection (6) with great interest. On balance, I think that it falls within the general pattern of the new clause and is a satisfactory addition to the original provisions in the Bill. I shall be interested to see how the new clause ultimately is operated and how it works in the courts.
Many of us who have practised in the criminal courts over the years believe that there are many other areas in which there is room for the defence to be required to make statements to the prosecution before the hearing so that issues can be narrowed down. We have seen a number of notable experiments in relation to pre-trial reviews in particular in which it has been sought to narrow down the issues to shorten the length of trials and to reduce that very unwelcome element of surprise, which often leads to injustice to both sides in criminal cases. I hope that we shall see these provisions work well enough for the House to want to consider at some future date applying some similar provisions to other areas of the criminal law.
I agree with the tentative and obviously reserved statement by the Minister to the effect that the provisions of subsection (6) are likely to encourage candour. I believe that they will indeed encourage candour and that defendants, who have, after all, been convicted and who are to be sentenced before the provisions of the Bill come into operation, will be seeking to settle any dispute by agreement without the need for a further lengthy hearing before the court. In my view, subsection (6) is likely to strike the right balance, and I hope that it will not be thought fit to withdraw it in another place.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I welcome the new clause, which I think is an improvement on the previous provision. If it is sufficient to satisfy the concerns voiced by members of the Opposition and, therefore, gives more of an all-party push to the Bill—although we have already had that—the message must go out from the House that the Bill has strong all-party support. If the doubts expressed by Opposition Members have been allayed, the Bill is that much stronger.
The point which I wish to raise briefly relates to a dialogue my hon. Friend and I had in Committee when I

raised the importance of international co-operation on this matter, something that I have always emphasised is of vital importance. While my hon. Friend accepted that that was a crucial point, he pointed out that, where a defendent had his tainted assets overseas and claimed that all his assets in this country were legitimately earned assets, the courts could still proceed against those legitimate assets to the total value of the tainted assets overseas. In the sort of dealing which might go on, albeit to speed up the process of law, which I welcome, the defendent could claim that all his assets in this country were legitimate and that all his assets in some country with which we do not have a bilateral agreement — Haiti, the Philippines or somewhere exotic — were the tainted ones. He could claim that none of his assets in this country were tainted but were earned through the sweat of his brow and years of labour. As a non-lawyer, I hope for some reassurance from the Minister.
The Hansard report of Committee proceedings continues to state that I am a lawyer. I disclaim any such pretension, and no such label should be attached to me. If a defendent tries to be too clever by half—and we are dealing with the most sophisticated element of the criminal fraternity—and claims that all his assets in this country are legitimate, and that it is only in Haiti or the Philippines that his assets are tainted, I hope that the Minister will give us the reassurance that we shall proceed very hard and immediately against the legitimate assets of such a person to the cumulative value of the tainted assets overseas.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) has a difficult choice to make. I understand that, before coming to the House, he was a member of the press. I do not know which would win in a popularity competition between a journalist and a lawyer—and I say that as a former journalist.
I am not sure that I can assist the Minister very much with regard to new clause 3. Having listened to his explanation, I want to thank him for the care and faithfulness with which he has responded to the points made in Committee. Like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I think that the balance is about right. Anything that can be done to encourage candour in the courts is especially welcome. Who knows, if it catches on there, it might even catch on here.

Mr. Mellor: That is a shrewd blow aimed at the end of an amiable intervention by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), may I say that in our preparation of the Bill we have had well in mind the fact that a major trafficker will almost certainly have some assets out of the jurisdiction. In addition, a major trafficker may well be involved in legitimate business and have taken to drug trafficking, or he may have gone into a business for a sufficient length of time as a cover for drug trafficking operations, so that one could not say that all parts of the assets of that business were tainted. We therefore resisted the temptation that our American experience might have led us into of laying emphasis upon the confiscation of the pieces of equipment that have been used in, or derived from, drug trafficking in favour of making a computation of the value of those items and making it mandatory for a court to make a confiscation order in the total sum, leaving it to the High Court, if necessary, itself to enforce that order against such property as it can find.


That is an important point, because if the tainted assets and the assets within the jurisdiction are one and the same thing, their recovery is perfectly straight forward. However, as in the example postulated by my hon. Friend, if the tainted assets are mainly outside the jurisdiction, the assets that cannot be linked to drug trafficking are within the jurisdiction, the offender refuses to bring those assets back into the jurisdiction, and we do not have arrangements with those other countries to enforce the order in their courts— we appreciate that it will be a time-consuming business to get those arrangements—it will be possible to satisfy the confiscation order by the seizure and disposal of the untainted assets that lie within the jurisdiction. If those untainted assets realise a sum sufficient to discharge the confiscation order, well and good. If there is a shortfall and it is clear that the offender could, if he chose, bring back other assets into the jurisdiction, he would be liable to serve the additional sentence of imprisonment in lieu of satisfying the court order.
In the absence of a full-scale international agreement, which we have been seeking with great vigour, and which is being sought at present in Vienna at the meeting of the United Nations Commission, I cannot pretend that we can iron out all the problems that will result from people placing their assets overseas. But we shall be able to resolve many such cases, as I hope I have demonstrated today.
I heard the reassuring remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Erdington on subsection (6). I had to judge whether I should introduce the provision without including it in the new clause, or whether I should say, halfheartedly, "It is there, but I will remove it if you do not like it." I am glad that my decision to keep it in is apparently correct, although we must see what the other place has to say about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2

ASSESSING THE PROCEEDS OF DRUG TRAFFICKING

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 3, leave out lines 17 to 29.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 38, leave out 'at the time of' and insert 'at any time since'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

Mr. Mellor: I remind the House that the Bill originally provided for the assumption that the trafficker's property was derived from drug trafficking applied to all the assets that he held at the time of his conviction and all those that had been in his hands at any time during the previous five years. In Committee, we had a discussion, led by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), assisted by my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), as to whether the period of five years was correct. Of course, I acknowledge that the period chosen was a

pretty arbitrary decision. Sometimes one can justify the particular period more than other times, but no one can ever say that he has the last word on the subject.
The Government have reconsidered the matter in the light of the discussion in Committee. The hon. Member for Erdington said that the period should be extended to 10 years, although he made it clear that he was not wedded to that figure. He simply believed that the longer period might be appropriate. We arrived at the period of five years by answering this question: if a trafficker is asked to prove that his assets were not acquired as a result of drug trafficking, how long can we reasonably expect him to go back and for how long would he have kept the necessary records? For how long would he keep in touch with people who might be able to confirm what he said? We hit on five years as being a fair period.
4.45 pm
However, it emerged during the discussion and from further research that a recent Finance Act provided that VAT records, for example, should be kept for six years. The Inland Revenue expects people to produce information about their income and expenditure in a variety of circumstances, and although it has different time limits for different purposes, six years is fairly common. That is also the period for which employers are expected to keep records of employees' remuneration, and the period during which individuals may claim tax relief.
In the hope that the amendment moves in the direction in which several hon. Members wish us to go, we invite the House to extend the period from five years to six years. I do not know whether anyone will press me to go further than that this afternoon. A longer period would increase the burden on the defence to an unacceptable extent, because many defendants who had had a legitimate income would not have the records many years later to prove that that was so, and we should not penalise them for that. If the prosecution can prove differently, it should not be inhibited by the six-year limit. Six years seems to be a reasonable period for the assumption to apply, although, where it can be shown that assets acquired earlier than that were the proceeds of drug trafficking, there will be no inhibition on the prosecution's seizing them.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes asked why the relevant period for the application of the assumption was calculated back from the time of conviction. He suggested that the reference point should be the time of charging. Many hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Erdington, shared his view. We wish to meet that point, but, in the interests of consistency with other parts of the Bill, especially clause 4, we suggest that the reference point should be the institution of proceedings. That will often pre-date charging, so I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the House.
In reviewing the period during which the assumptions should apply, we also thought it right to cover any gap that might arise between conviction and the imposition of the confiscation order should the court need to adjourn for any reason. That is why we tabled amendment No.2.
As we propose to extend the operative period for the assumptions in clause 2, we thought that, in the interests of consistency, we should do the same in respect of transfers of property for less than full value, which also have a five-year limitation. That provision is included in


clause 4. Although it is not strictly necessary for the periods in clauses 2 and 4 to be the same, it is sensible that they should be. That is why I ask the House to accept the amendment to clause 4, which would provide a six-year period. I hope that my explanations have helped the House.

Mr. Corbett: Before the week is over, I shall have inflicted much damage upon the Minister's political career by thanking him for the way in which he has responded to points made in Committee. As he said, there is far more logic in a six-year limitation, especially in terms of VAT and some Inland Revenue practices. I also welcome the fact that the period will date from the time when the proceedings were instituted, which again is more logical.

Mr. Raffan: I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister said about a period of six years. Ideally I would prefer even longer but one must be realistic. One cannot go beyond six years or a great deal of court time will be consumed. My hon. Friend is right; we do not want to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is not here but he made a valuable point in Committee to which my hon. Friend the Minister has responded by making the period apply from the institution of proceedings rather than from the date of conviction. My hon. Friend was adamant that the latter should not be the case. He was concerned that the period should not finish before conviction, otherwise assets acquired after arrest, but before conviction, would fall out of the frame. That would be unfortunate as someone could be on remand for some time. Such a person could still be receiving tainted money after proceedings had been instituted. I accept my hon. Friend's point that it would be in the defendant's interests to prolong the process of law so that he could get out of liability for as many tainted assets as possible, but I am still worried about the time between the institution of proceedings and conviction. What happens to tainted assets that are transferred during that time? My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes put it rather well—it falls out of the frame.

Mr. Mellor: I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) to amendment No. 3 which meets the relevant arrangements by providing:
at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him".
That relates to the timing of the assumption. We think that it would be extremely unlikely if there were any difficulty in the period leading up to trial. Such matters would be in recent memory and the prosecution authorities would have full tabs on what the person was up to because he would have been identified and charged. A great deal would be known about him. That is the time when one would expect the prosecution to know the answers and to not have to rely on the defendant, perhaps going back to before the date when the defendant came to notice. At that earlier stage, it is quite reasonable to say that the defendant knows far more about how he got his house than the prosecution. In serious cases, assets would have been frozen in any event.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's sincerity. If, having considered the matter, I find that I have been overconfident, we shall not hesitate to examine it again in another place. I shall write to my hon. Friend if we have a chance to re-examine it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 3, line 40, leave out from 'him' to end of line 41 and insert
'at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him'.

No. 4, in page 4, line 5, leave out 'in' and insert 'since the beginning of'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Clause 3

AMOUNT TO BE RECOVERED UNDER CONFISCATION ORDER

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 4, leave out lines 31 to 44.

No. 28, in page 5 line 1, leave out
'of the matters specified in subsection (2) above'
and insert
'matter relevant for determining the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made from property available in respect of the defendant'.

No. 29, in page 5, line 2, leave out 'a statement so tendered' and insert
'an acceptance under section [Statements relating to drug trafficking] of this Act'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Clause 4

CONFISCATION ORDERS: DEFINITION OF TERMS

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 5, line 18, leave out `five' and insert 'six'.
No. 30, in page 6, line 13, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections [Statements relating to drug trafficking] and'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Clause 5

APPLICATIONS OF PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCING FINES

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 7, line 37, leave out 'Any' and insert—
'Where—

(a) a warrant of commitment is issued for a default in payment of an amount ordered to be paid under section 1 of this Act in respect of an offence or offences, and
(b) at the time the warrant is issued, the defendant is liable to serve a term of custody in respect of the offence or offences,

the'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 19 to 21.

Mr. Mellor: This group of amendments does not represent any change of policy, but it tightens up the draft and usefully links the new provision to the existing procedure of commitment of fine defaulters by warrant. These are improvements, albeit minor, which I trust will commend themselves to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 7, line 39, leave out from 'default)' to end of line 43 and insert
'to be served in default of payment of the amount shall not begin to run until after the term mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.

No. 20, in page 8, line 1, after '4', insert 'or 9'.

No. 21, in page 8, line 6, leave out from 'disregarded' to the end of line 10 and insert—
'(i) any sentence suspended under section 22(1) of the said Act of 1973 which has not taken effect at the time the warrant is issued,
(ii) in the case of a sentence of imprisonment passed with an order under section 47(1) of the

Criminal Law Act 1977, or any part of the sentence which the defendant has not at that time been required to serve in prison, and
(iii) any term of imprisonment or detention fixed under section 31(2) of the said Act of 1973 for which a warrant of commitment has not been issued at that time. '.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Clause 6

RESTRAINT ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 8, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 and insert 'The High Court'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Clause 7

CHARGING ORDERS IN RESPECT OF LAND, SECURITIES ETC.

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 9, line 27, leave out from beginning to 'may' in line 31 and insert 'The High Court'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 10, line 23, leave out 'state' and insert 'country'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 23.

Mr. Mellor: The amendment is intended simply to make the terminology of clause 7 fully consistent with that in clause 17, so that there is no possibility of dispute about the relative meanings of "state" and "country". We discovered that state and country had been used when one of those nouns alone would have done. We have opted for country for reasons which elude me, but I am sure that they are extremely good.
Amendment No. 23 is intended to bring the provisions relating to charging orders into line with those relating to restraint orders by specifying that an order must be discharged when the proceedings against the drug traffickers are concluded. A charging order is made only to secure payment of sums due, or which might become due, under a confiscation order: it is patently right that if the proceedings are discontinued, or if a confiscation is not made or is satisfied by payments from other sources, the charging order has no further purpose and must be discharged. It is a tidying-up which I hope shows our punctilliousness on these matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 10, line 36, after `if', insert

`the proceedings for the offences are concluded or'. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Clause 10

APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS OF REALISATION

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 13, line 13, leave out
`as mentioned in subsection (1) above'
and insert
`by any person towards the satisfaction of a confiscation order'.
I hope that this also is a relatively straightforward matter. The amendment provides that money paid by the trafficker, or a third party, in satisfaction of a confiscation order should be treated in the same way as money collected by a receiver appointed under clause 9. That is, it will be

treated as money collected in payment of a fine and paid by the clerk of the relevant magistrates' court to the Secretary of State for onward transmission to the Consolidated Fund.
I know that this touches on matters which were the subject of some discussion. I regret having to stick my head into the lion's jaws, but I am told that it is inevitable. I do so, and step back hastily.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

ENFORCEMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 17, line 11, leave
out 'for' and insert
`that for the purposes of'.

No. 11, in page 17, line 12, after 'sections', insert
`[Cases in which restraint orders and charging orders may be made]'.

No. 12, in page 17, line 12, leave out second 'to' and insert 'this Act shall'.

No. 13, in page 17, line 20, leave out 'and'.

No. 14, in page 17, line 22, after 'institution', insert 'or conclusion'.

No. 15, in page 17, line 24, leave out
'as the case may be'.

No. 16, in page 17, line 24, after `institution', insert `or conclusion'.

No. 17, in page 17, line 25, at end insert
`as the case may be, and
(d) references to the laying of an information or the issue of a summons or warrant under section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 included a reference to making a complaint or issuing a summons or warrant (as the case may be) under Article 20 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Clause 17

ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER EXTERNAL ORDERS

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 18, line 31, at end insert
'as they have effect in relation to a confiscation order'.
This amendment is also proposed for clarification. It provides expressly that a number of provisions in the Bill — including those relating to restraint and charging orders and the realisation of property — should have effect in relation to those overseas confiscation orders which will be enforceable in England and Wales, just as they have effect in relation to confiscation orders made here.
This is another part of the international element to which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and others attach such importance. When we have an arrangement with a country that has negotiated, or, as we hope, we are both parties to, an international convention on these matters, an order which affects property in Britain made by a foreign court will in this respect be treated precisely the same as an order by a British court against the same property. That was already implicit in clause 17, but, knowing how lawyers will argue about these simple points, I thought that we should put the matter beyond doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

ORDER TO MAKE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move that amendment No. 6, in page 19, line 34, leave out from beginning to 'period' in line 35 and insert 'within such'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Governent amendment No. 7.

Mr. Mellor: This also is a technical matter but it is worthwhile. The Bill originally provided that where a circuit judge made an order requiring a bank or other holder of information to produce material to a constable, the bank should have to comply within seven days or
"such longer period as the order may specify".
The amendments give the judge a new discretion to specify a shorter period if he thinks that is appropriate. Although it seems technical, there is a real point which I think will be welcomed particularly by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). The period originally was seven days. The hon. Gentleman, fresh from his discussions with the banks in the Select Committee on Home Affairs, suggested three working days. I must stress again that the banks have been most helpful in agreeing to the arrangements and have displayed a positive approach to the real difficulties in which financial institutions can be placed if unscrupulous people seek to make use of their services to launder dishonestly acquired assets. In Committee other hon. Members seemed sympathetic to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Erdington, so I undertook to consider it carefully.
5 pm
I have to report that the information holders that we consulted — the banks and the Inland Revenue —expressed serious reservations about three working days becoming the norm. They pointed out that the material in question might be at the other end of the country from the headquarters office on which the order was served and that they would have to identify and retrieve it, which might take time. Hon. Members can draw on their own experience of constituents' tax problems. Although the Inland Revenue always deals with our queries with cheerfulness, sometimes it takes longer than three days. The banks and the Inland Revenue have stressed that they would be happy to produce the information in less than three days wherever possible, but they did not want the embarrassment of regularly failing to produce the information on time.
In my opinion, the holders of the information are justified in preferring seven days as the normal period, but we are giving a discretion to the judge to impose an earlier deadline than seven days if he thinks that is justified and practicable, just as the Bill from the first gave the judge discretion to specify a longer time. I hope that deals in a Solomon-like way with the dilemma that we face.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman has been his usual wise self. This is a sensible arrangement. I welcome the response by the banks and other holders of information that, where possible, they will not delay the provision of information.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 19, line 36, at end insert—

`(2A) The period to be specified in an order under subsection (2) above shall be seven days unless it appears to the judge that a longer or shorter period would be appropriate in the particular circumstances of the application.'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have the greatest pleasure in standing here, such a relatively short time after the Bill was introduced, to commend it to the House for Third Reading. The Bill has required a great deal of work by my officials and myself, but that work will have been worth while if it results in us having a mechanism whereby we can effectively deprive the drug trafficker of the enormous gains that he can achieve from a successful career pursuing that wretched crime.
Once again—this is not empty piety —I must say how grateful I am to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the positive spirit in which they have engaged in discussions on the Bill. There has not been in any sense passive acquiescence in the passage of a measure that hon. Members were too embarrassed to oppose because of the climate but a full-hearted recognition on both sides that the matter must be addressed speedily. My memory of our discussions will be the recognition that if the matter had to be addressed at all, it had to be addressed properly. There could not be legislation by gesture. We had to provide a mechanism which is capable of being readily enforced, and which bites.
When I introduced the measure in October, I said that the procedures we proposed would have the teeth of a shark. I believe that we have achieved that. Those who have participated in the discussions — I commend particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—have considered the details and come forward with amendments which I have been able in Committee and this afternoon to accept or to embellish or work upon in a way that has strengthened the Bill. We should all feel a sense of shared achievement as we send the Bill to another place in the hope that it will be received there as positively as it has been here.
Before turning to matters of general interest, I wish to take the opportunity of dealing with one or two pieces of unfinished business which arose in Committee and which I could not address by way of amendment on Report. It would be inappropriate if the Bill were to leave the House without a full account having been given of our consideration of such matters.
Clause 2(6) provides that the court may adjust its assessment of the proceeds of drug trafficking to take account of changes in their value since they were received. In Committee it was suggested that such adjustments should be mandatory, at least where an increase in value was concerned. It was felt that reductions should continue to be discretionary. We have considered the point carefully, but remain convinced that mandatory adjustment would be impracticable, although attractive in theory.
In some cases it is true that the courts would readily be able to calculate increases in value, but in many cases they would not. Traffickers may well move their money around rapidly. Drug proceeds might be combined with other money to buy assets which were resold and the sale receipts might be used with other funds in different


combinations to buy other property. Such a cycle might be repeated more than once before a trafficker was brought to justice. It would often be impossible for the court in reality to assess the increase in the value of the proceeds. In those circumstances, we do not think it would be feasible to make the adjustment mandatory. Discretion will enable the court to take account of any significant gains, if necessary on a broad brush basis. I do not duck the issue, but we have to be realistic. Often a broad brush approach will be the only way of painting the picture. That is what the courts will want to do.
We are taking a fresh look at clause 2 to take account of the points made in Committee and to see whether, notwithstanding the reservations, we can clarify the provisions and make it easier for the courts to use the power of adjustment given to them by paragraph (b). If necessary, an amendment will be tabled in another place.
Perhaps I may mention briefly two drafting points raised in Committee about which we have consulted the draftsmen. It was suggested that the word "present" should be inserted in clause 3(2)(c)—

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman is pulling in the crowds.

Mr. Mellor: Yes. I am glad hon. Members are now so interested in the Third Reading of a major Bill.

Orders of the Day — British Leyland

Mr. Terry Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Minister has just said, we are all interested in the Bill but we are also interested in other matters which are of great importance. During the last few weeks there have been several statements and questions about the future of British Leyland and the discussions with General Motors. I understand that at this very moment the Department of Trade and Industry is briefing journalists about further developments in the British Leyland saga. I and my lion. Friends resent very much the continued practice of the Department of Trade and Industry of using leaks and briefings instead of coming to the House and making a statement on a matter which is of extreme importance to many thousands of our constituents. I should like your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how we can get a Minister from that Department to come to the House to make a statement at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that the point which he has made will be duly noted in the quarters which can respond to what he has said.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has obviously been a great deal of controversy since we returned after the Christmas recess about leaks and inquiries into the Westland affair. I am sure that none of us wishes to think that the Prime Minister was misleading the House less than two hours ago in some of her comments about British Leyland. In order to protect her reputation, she, or at least one of the Ministers responsible, should make a statement to the House almost immediately.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members suddenly to come into the Chamber in the middle of a debate on an important Bill and make party political points at a time when they know they will attract the maximum media attention? Is that the way this House must conduct its business?

Mr. Terry Davis: I raised the matter because at this time officials from the Department of Trade and Industry are briefing journalists. Instead of that, Ministers should come to make a statement to the House.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point at issue is simple. The House of Commons has a sovereign right to know what the Government have decided about a basic industry. The matter has not been debated over a great number of hours in the Chamber, but we know that at this moment journalists are being given information which has not been given to the House. That is not only wholly unacceptable, but irresponsible.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to those points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and seek your guidance. We are debating the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill. It is designed to save lives and to hammer people who bring drugs into the country and make vast profits. It is a measure of the highest importance, and this vital debate is being interrupted by


Labour party members who came in to the House to make party political points of a dogmatic and cheap kind. I do not accept the sincerity of their points. They could have waited until the end of Third Reading to make those points. If they cared about stopping drug abuse, that is exactly what they would have done.

Mr. Stuart Randall: rose—

Mr. Frank Dobson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can deal with the points that have been raised.
I have already made it clear that this is not a matter for the Chair. Hon. Members have made their points. We should now return to the business before the House, which is the Third Reading of the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We all understand and sympathise with hon. Members who are taking part in the debate. Quite clearly, my hon. Friends would not have thought it right to intervene unless there was a matter of considerable importance taking place within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster but not in the Chamber. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the issue of the disposal of British Leyland and its future is of the utmost current interest and importance, and it has been running now for more than the past week.
We well understand that it is not for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to answer or decree on these matters. It is customary, particularly in the presence of the Leader of the House, who I am glad to see is now in his place, to put through you to him the need for an immediate statement on the matters which the press is now being briefed upon about the future of British Leyland. Surely it is now up to the Leader of the House to make some response and to make sure the House has the statement that it deserves on this important matter.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I am sure the House wishes to give proper consideration to the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill. I also recognise the point the right hon. Gentleman has just made. Of course, I will look into the matter and perhaps it could be further considered through the usual channels.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of that exchange, I hope that we can now return to the business of the House.

Orders of the Day — Drug Trafficking Offences Bill

Mr. Mellor: As a Minister in that quiet Whitehall backwater, the Home Office, I am a stranger to controversy but it has enlivened my dull old life to be a witness to some controversy, even if I was not a participant. Perhaps I could return to an area in which there is rather more amity on display than in the one that has just been touched on. I hope that I was not dealing with matters at inordinate length, but I was trying to set the seal on the careful consideration the House has given to the Bill.
I was dealing with points that were raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Erdington and by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery who speaks for the Liberal party. I was explaining why it was that in some instances I was not able to come forward with amendments to meet their points as I did on some of the other matters. I was dealing with two drafting points that were raised in Committee on clause 3(2). I have been back to the draftsman to consult him about those.
In clause 3(2)(c) it was suggested that the word "present" should be inserted before "value" to make it clear that the property should not be valued as at the date of acquisition. I am advised by the draftsman that the earlier words in clause 3(2), by reference to the date the statement is made, were enough to put the matter beyond doubt. I hope that is helpful.
Some points arose about clauses 18 and 19. Those clauses provide for a circuit judge to make an order or to grant a warrant allowing access to information that is likely to be of substantial value to a drug trafficking investigation. The hon. Member for Erdington suggested in Committee that a more appropriate test would be "relevance" rather the "value". I know that he was concerned to ensure that the criteria for such orders are sufficiently tightly drawn, and he raised a valuable point. I understand and share his anxiety that the criteria should be sufficiently tightly drawn.
The phrase "substantial value" was taken from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and is intended to be a sufficiently rigorous test to rule out any possibility that the powers would be used in marginal cases. In practice, I doubt whether much is likely to hinge on the distinction between "relevance" and "value". It is difficult to see how something could be of substantial value without also being of substantial relevance. Something could perhaps be relevant without being of value. If anything, on examination value may be the harder test to satisfy.
I have consulted the draftsman and he has advised me that "relevance" could lead to unintended complications because of its technical meaning in relation to evidence. The hon. Gentleman will remember that that was the objection that sprang fully armed from my own brow as a former lawyer who some years ago hung up his wig and joined the human race. For those reasons, I am not proposing any amendment to the original version. [Interruption.] I knew that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) would enjoy that.
Clause 15 contains a matter that we have not resolved, and it is about the formulation of the new laundering offence. The House may recall that that offence lies at the heart of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who I am glad to see in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) both asked questions in Committee, having


been properly consulted by bank employees about their liability. Perhaps I ought to return to that point in order to satisfy hon. Members who have expressed anxiety.
It is important that we get right any criminal offence, and particularly one that carries a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment. We have always accepted that this offence would be one of the more difficult parts of the Bill. From the start, it raised a number of tricky problems about the balance to be struck between effectiveness, on the one hand, and the risk of penalising essentially innocent behaviour, on the other. One of the difficulties about the activity that may give rise to the offence is that participating in a financial transaction will often look the same whether it is innocent or guilty. The mental element is all important. Defining what the mental element in the offence, or the mens rea, as they say in the Temple, should be has been exercising our minds.
Obviously, we do not want a formulation that will pose insuperable problems for ordinary honest bank clerks going about their everyday duties, but we need a formulation that will be effective in enabling any person who assists the drug trafficker by laundering his proceeds to be brought to justice and convicted without placing an impossible burden on the prosecution. We want to send out a warning that those involved in handling other people's money have a duty to satisfy themselves that they are dealing with the sort of person with whom respectable institutions would deal.
We have been looking carefully at the points raised by my hon. Friends, including the use of an objective test for the mental element of the offence, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, and the use of the word "suspect", which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes. Given the complexities of the laundering concept, we wanted to take further advice from the parliamentary draftsman and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am not able to announce any conclusion, but, given the importance of this new offence, I hope that the House will agree that it is important to take sufficient time to satisfy ourselves about the best formulation. As soon as I can, I shall write to the hon. Members who have been worried about this aspect. I assure them that if, as a result of our deliberations, we conclude that some change is advisable, any necessary amendment will be tabled in good time in another place.
I am not satisfied that we need to make a change at this stage, but I accept the legitimacy of the concern that has been expressed. We are driving ourselves on to examine the mental element to satisfy ourselves that we have done a precise job in formulating the offence in a way that is fair to those involved in financial deals and to the prosecution, giving it a proper opportunity to make this laundering offence stick. Some unscrupulous people are playing a vital part in facilitating drug trafficking by helping the principal to get away with his funds and to put them into legitimate assets. Does the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery wish me to give way? I see that he does not.
In Committee, a number of Members referred to Scotland. Although the legal systems in Scotland and in England and Wales are complementary, their approaches differ greatly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced that he intends at the earliest opportunity to introduce legislation to provide for the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking in Scotland. It would not be practicable simply

to extend the provisions of the legislation to Scotland in view of the distinctive features of and separate procedures in the Scottish legal system. Until the Scottish legislation comes into force, provision must be made in the Bill to ensure that confiscation orders imposed by courts in England and Wales can be enforced against assets held in Scotland. Clause 14, as drafted, provides an enabling power for this to be done by Order in Council.
Following discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, we propose to table amendments in another place specifying in some detail the procedures by which the Bill will be enforced in Scotland. Those procedures will replace clause 14 altogether. I am sorry that the complexities of drafting have not allowed us to do that in time for this debate.
Essentially, we propose that any order made by the High Court in England and Wales in exercising its functions under the Bill will be automatically recognised and have effect in Scotland. The powers of any receiver appointed under the Bill will be automatically recognised in Scotland. In cases where it is necessary to proceed to measures of enforcement, these powers will be available once the judgment has been registered in the Court of Session.
Police and Customs officers in Scotland will be given similar powers to those available to English and Welsh police under the Bill to ensure effective cross-border enforcement. Further points which occur when considering the Bill in another place might require other amendments or refinements. The provisions we have agreed would enable confiscation of proceeds to play a vital role in the Government's, overall strategy against drug trafficking by removing the major incentive to traffic in drugs and by attacking the funds that are necessary to finance drug trafficking operations.
I come to a point which was specifically raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in a private notice question. It concerns the sale in a number of shops in London and elsewhere of cocaine kits. Last Friday week, I undertook to consider as a matter of urgency the adequacy of the present law to prevent such sales and the possibility of introducing a clause to outlaw the sale of these kits—a practice that has caused much offence to so many people. Given the importance of this issue and its relevance to the Bill, I hope that I may take this opportunity to raise it today.
We have looked carefully at the question whether any offence is committed under existing law by the sale of these kits. Although ultimately this is a matter for the courts, I have been advised that the incitement provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 would bite on the sale of cocaine kits only in limited circumstances. To constitute an offence of incitement, there must be an element of persuasion. I understand that the kits are normally displayed and sold without any suggestion being made as to their likely use. Moreover, it is arguable that a person who buys a cocaine kit must either possess the drug or be determined to possess it. Hence, the question of incitement might not arise.
It has been suggested that the existing regulatory powers should be used to ban the sale of cocaine kits. I have consulted the Department of Trade and Industry, but am advised that the consumer legislation for which it is responsible is concerned with the intrinsic safety of consumer goods and no existing regulations could be held to apply to cocaine kits.


For those reasons, we are inclined to think that the only effective answer will be the creation of a new specific offence. This in itself is not without difficulties because, as I explained last Friday week, the components of a cocaine kit are everyday items which are sold separately for legitimate purposes. Obviously, we would not want to penalise the sale of, for example, handbag mirrors or razor blades which have perfectly normal, straightforward uses. We want to ensure that any formulation of the new offence does not make it more difficult—this is an increasingly important point—for heroin addicts to obtain syringes and needles because of the increased risk of contracting AIDS and hepatitis which would be increased by the re-use of such items. We do not want to encourage addicts to go to "shooting galleries," as they are called in New York, where needles are used by a number of addicts, thereby facilitating the spread of these deadly infections.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: rose—

Mr. Mellor: I shall just finish what I was going to say and then give way.
Obviously, we shall want to reflect and consult further with interested parties before reaching a final view on the best formulation of any new provision. Our initial thinking is that it should be made an offence for a person to supply or to offer to supply any combination of articles which, taken together, he knows or believes are likely to be used for the purpose of inhaling a controlled drug. It might be appropriate to provide in addition that a belief by the seller that the articles would be used to inhale a drug for medical purposes should be a defence to such a charge. We shall consider that point further.
We shall pursue this point as a matter of urgency. It is possible that such a provision will be regarded as relevant to the Bill. I shall raise this point with the authorities in another place. If it does not prove to be practicable to include such a provision in the legislation, we shall consider possible alternative vehicles. I know that the House as a whole shares the Government's concern that early action should be taken on the sale of these kits.

Mr. Hanley: I wanted to intervene before my hon. Friend gave that hopeful sign that there will be an end to the sale of drug paraphernalia. Will my hon. Friend and his Department be at pains to investigate how other countries, such as America, manage to rid themselves of certain drug paraphernalia? I believe that there is successful legislation in many American states banning this type of component kit.

Mr. Mellor: What my hon. Friend says about America is true up to a point. There is no federal offence of selling drug paraphernalia because of the same difficulties that we have experienced on this side of the Atlantic. However, there is a model law for application by states, which has been drafted by our good friends in the drug enforcement administration in Washington. Some states have chosen to adopt that approach. We have drawn upon the American experience in our consideration of the provision. I hope that when it is polished up, it will have support from both sides of the House.
Before we part company with the Bill, there are some basic principles that I should like to emphasise. It is

offensive to ordinary citizens to see traffickers living in style as a result of the misery that they have brought to others. The likelihood of losing their proceeds will be an important deterrent if we can make clear how effective and sharp-edged the Bill is.
We must ensure that an effective remedy is available to the courts, so that proceeds cannot be used to finance further trafficking. Like a business, the danger is that proceeds from one deal could finance larger deals and allow ever greater quantities of drugs to be brought into Britain and to become freely available on our streets, thus threatening the future of our youngsters.
The money must be removed completely from the drugs arena. Obviously, that is easier said than done, but our efforts during the past six weeks are an advance on the efforts made in the different and simpler era of the early 1970s when the House passed the Misuse of Drugs Act. At that time the House purported to give power to seize assets, which the courts have subsequently found to be too narrow and devoid of the mechanisms that we have introduced today.
We have drawn on the international experience, which has informed the awareness of so many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. We have especially considered the United States, which has a well-established criminal and civil forfeiture procedure. The United States example has spurred us on, because massive sums of money have been recovered from traffickers. Some significant breakthroughs have been made in the area of what happens to the money. Up to the present we have focused exclusively on what happens to the drugs. However, although the American example provided many insights and gave us a great spur to action, many of the United States provisions are alien to our legal system. The civil forfeiture procedure, though effective in America, is difficult for us to swallow. We have always expected such procedures to be linked to conviction. As links across the Atlantic have proved to be so controversial these days, I hope that we have not taken hook, line and sinker the American model, but that we have used the American experience to spur us on to a truly British answer to our problems. I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman keeps wanting to give way to me. What have I done?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was leaning forward menacingly. I thought that I had lulled him to sleep or stimulated him to some great thought. He may feel that he is entitled to rest on his laurels having contributed so much to the Bill.
We require a court to impose a confiscation order, because we wish to deprive every trafficker of his proceeds, however large or small. Bearing in mind our experience of forfeiture and confiscation orders in the courts, it is crucial that the confiscation order should not be an optional extra, but should be at the heart of the way in which a court deals with a drug trafficker. That is central to society's response to the problems posed by the drug trafficker.
At an early stage we had to decide whether to go down the forfeiture or the confiscation road. Forfeiture had its attractions in that tainted property could be seized without the need for valuation, which is part of our present legislation. However, for reasons on which I have already


dilated to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), forfeiture did not give us the flexibility of confiscation. The attraction of confiscation is that, once a sum has been compiled that represents the proceeds of drug trafficking, it can be enforced against any property of the trafficker regardless of the source from which the property might have come. That provides the crucial flexibility that is required in cases such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn. When some assets are overseas and some are domestic, we can lay our hands only on the domestic assets with forfeiture, we would be unable to touch non-tainted assets, but with confiscation we can.
We have looked for the loopholes and tried to stop them in advance. The obvious loopholes are putting property in the names of friends and family and disposing of them before the end of the trial. We have not hesitated to lean across the civil law to take provisions that have worked well in that context, on the basis, "Why should the devil have all the good tunes?" If there are other loopholes, it is not too late for us to drive ourselves on to address the crucial points of detail. In the end, it is the small print rather than the large paragraphs that determines our success.
I stress the importance of investigative powers, not simply because they will help us to ensure that we get all the proceeds, but because they will enable us to go further into the complex conspiracies that are involved in major drug trafficking. They will help us to gain information about people who never soil their hands with the drugs, but who rely on others to do so. Those people mastermind the drug-selling operation from a distance, but they are only too anxious to mastermind the spending and investment at close quarters, because they are in business to make money. Those financial dealings will provide the crucial evidence to enable us to smash more conspiracies and to catch even more of the prime movers than we have succeeded in doing up to the present.
Going into the records of the Inland Revenue, banks and financial institutions is sensitive territory, however imperative the need to take action that drives us on. We must recognise that safeguards are applied to ensure that the authorities do not use drug trafficking as a pretext to throw on one side the liberty of the subject or to apply draconian powers to people who, are innocent.
We must remember that some people who are not guilty of these offences will always excite suspicion. That is why we have been at pains to build into the provisions safeguards to ensure that, while they are hard-hitting, they will not put at risk the rights and welfare of ordinary citizens. That is why we have stressed the role of senior judges of the High Court at the restraint and enforcement stage. That is why we have considered even the singular matter of the investigative part of the Government machine going to court to ask another part of the Government machine to provide information that may be relevant to an inquiry. That is not to be done through cosy telephone calls, but through a judge deciding that it would be appropriate for the Inland Revenue to give records of suspects. That gives independence to the decision for access.
Restraint will be available only in closely defined circumstances. We scoured that provision this afternoon and made some changes. We have taken particular pains to ensure that the rights of third parties are protected by specific provision for them to put their case to the High

Court before enforcement. We cannot leave third parties out of the matter. That would be to fail in our duty because we know that someone will always pass to third parties tainted money which must be recovered. Third parties have rights, which the Bill protects.
We insist that there must be reasonable grounds for orders and warrants requiring the disclosure of information by banks and others, and that the bank or financial institution may be heard about whether or not it is appropriate that disclosure should be made. We recognised that that might lead to the leakage of information which could, if it were relayed back to the central figure, be damaging to the investigation, and we have not hesitated to create a criminal offence of leaking information. I hope that that will deter people from doing so.
We are not an island in these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, who has taken a great interest and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for having taken through the House the increase in penalties for class A drugs, has been at pains to stress the significance of the international aspects. I have had the opportunity to travel and visit some of the other key countries involved. I know that if the international community is to resist the drugs menace, it must break down the barriers to effective co-operation and action against drug traffickers. The trafficker is a man of the world who exploits national boundaries to give him the freedom to operate and the confidence to feel that, while he and his henchmen are united in their endeavours, the authorities are fragmented and do not work together. The international elements of intelligence and law enforcement have been improved dramatically. I speak in the presence of members of the Home Affairs Select Committee who have travelled the world and seen that for themselves.
We have asked the House for powers, and it has been minded to grant us power to seek like-minded countries to enter into arrangements whereby any order made by their courts against a drug trafficker whose assets are located in the United Kingdom will be enforced as if that order were made in our Central Criminal Court. We expect them to do the same. That is the least we can expect as an international community if we mean what we say and are not merely gesturing about dealing with drug trafficking.
I do not want to underestimate the problems and difficulties. It is time-consuming to negotiate these arrangements painfully and country by country, as those with any experience of negotiating extradition arrangements will know. We shall try to do so, assisted by the clear impetus for change evidenced in our European partners who work with us in the Pompidou group—the Council of Ministers concerned with drugs—which we chair and in which we have played an active role.
The will exists, but it would be much better to draft a treaty with all countries with goodwill to deal with the whole of drug trafficking, to allow for mutual enforcement and for drug traffickers arrested in one jurisdiction to be shifted to another, and to make drug trafficking an international offence so that, wherever a trafficker commits an offence and wherever he is caught, the evidence is admissible against him. The fact that a man makes a drugs deal on the north-west frontier of Pakistan, intending to sell the drugs at a huge profit in Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool, should not make it less of an offence against the people of those cities than if he had robbed a high street bank in one of those cities.


Before much longer I hope to give an account of the efforts being made today in Vienna at the meeting of the United Nations Commission, at which 35 countries are represented, and of their positive responses to a new United Nations convention on drugs trafficking. They are thrashing out the various arrangements that need to be made.
We are not defenceless against the failure to negotiate international arrangements. We must not be starry-eyed. Just as some countries stand outside the battle against international terrorism, others will be ready to seize the chance of becoming a banking haven for tainted money, and we must recognise that. That is why we have given ourselves great flexibility through the structure of the order, and why we shall give a trafficker with assets overseas the choice of either bringing them within our jurisdiction or of serving a longer period imprisonment.
We were driven on this difficult journey by the feeling that, although we had increased the penalty to life imprisonment for drug trafficking, when a trafficker came out of prison he could live a life of ease and luxury on the proceeds. That was not enough to deter a ruthless or reckless person from becoming involved in the business. That spurred us on, and that is why we have worked so effectively together on the legislation. I urge the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Corbett: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I welcome the Minister's remarks about cocaine kits. Welcome as they were, we continue to look to the Government to take urgent effective action against this new menace. Parents and most young people are horrified at developments involving glue sniffing and other solvent abuse.
The Bill is an important new weapon in our national fight against drug abuse, which puts a generation of young people at deadly risk. However, it is only one weapon. By raising sharply the penalty for people who get caught taking part in the deadly trade, it may deter some people. The Bill might encourage others to get out of the drugs trade. When traffickers are caught and convicted, they will know for certain that all their assets will be taken unless they can prove that the assets were not bought or acquired with the proceeds of drugs trafficking.
We all know that to win this war against drug abuse, which we are all determined to do, we need a multi-agency approach. Clobbering the convicted trafficker hits and hurts but only after the damage has been done. More action needs to be taken on the supply and demand sides.
The Bill, as the Minister said, needs backing by the international community. Drug traffickers must be treated in the same way as acts of piracy or terrorism are treated by the responsible international community. The illicit drugs trade knows no international boundaries. Measures to chase and catch the traffickers and seize their assets need also to know no international boundaries. It is also important that every sensible step is taken to detect and prevent supplies of heroin and cocaine from coming into Britain in the present large quantities.
The Government know that the Opposition have been critical about the cut of 11·5 per cent. in the strength of Customs and Excise officers since 1979, although we well

understand that there is more to combating trafficking than the proper manning of red and green channels at ports of entry. Nonetheless, effective manning at the ports of entry is essential.
The number of Customs officers has fallen since 1978–79, although we are now pleased to see that it is planned to raise numbers to 26,000 by 1 April 1988. Just so that we all know where we all are on this matter, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) —will recall that when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 22 January 1986 it was put to him in question 520 in the minutes of evidence that the numbers of preventive uniformed staff at ports of entry would be back to where it was in 1979 by the end of the 1986–87 financial year. The Minister replied:
At the end of the financial year 1986–87 in terms of absolute numbers. It is a question of how they are used, of course, but that is right, yes.
The House will welcome the hon. Gentleman's further statement that—
what we have to say is that given the scale of the threat we now face, and the way it is manifesting itself, do we need additional cover here? If the answer to that is 'Yes', I certainly can assure this Committee that there is no arbitrary economic reason as to why those resources should not be provided.
We welcome that and I know that Customs and Excise staff and their trade unions will echo that welcome. The Customs and Excise staff are professional men and women anxious to do a professional job and ask only that they get the manpower, tools and training to do that.

Mr. Mellor: I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman is putting that case. As one who has tried very hard to establish a climate of shared endeavour, it has pained me that there has been a great difference between us and the Customs officers' unions on these matters. Since my ministrial group was formed, substantial additional resources have been announced for Customs and Excise. I appreciate that it will always be a bone of contention as to whether reductions that were made in the pursuance of the Government's overall objectives were proper. That is probably a matter that is best left alone as different people will draw different conclusions.
It is crucial that the resources are being made available. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear in the strongest possible terms that we support the Customs and Excise in its battle and reasonable requests will be considered in that spirit. I hope that we may go ahead on that basis. I am anxious to make it clear that we should lay to one side the sometimes rather harsh exchanges that we have had on these issues. I hope that we can pay full-hearted compliments to the way in which the Customs, in co-operation with the police, are trying to intercept as many narcotics smugglers as possible.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful for the Minister's remarks but, more important, I anticipate that those trade unions with members in Customs and Excise will take his remarks as an encouraging sign and try to build on them.
The new investigative powers to track down the proceeds of trafficking in the Bill will demand a high degree of competence and skill from the police officers involved. Training is very much the key to the successful way in which the Bill's provisions can be effective. I hope that the Minister can give an unqualified assurance tonight


that any necessary training in relation to the Bill will get urgent priority and will not have to wait at the back of a queue because of a lack of staff or cash.
Parliament is providing an important new weapon in the battle against trafficking and will have no patience if the use of these powers is in any way delayed or blunted because of inadequate training. The developing specialist drugs squads, aided by fraud squad members, will have to make the detailed and complicated financial searches. Traffickers will not usually leave a fully sign-posted route to where their converted assets are stored.
My one disappointment with the Bill, and this will come as no surprise to the Minister, is that the novel step of turning the seized assets back against the traffickers has not been taken. I know the argument that the estimated £6·6 million a year will help to offset Government spending on drug abuse. I believe, however, that there has been a lack of imagination. The public would have understood and applauded the use of the assets to set up a trust to help to understand and combat addiction, to help to rehabilitate, treat and encourage people to come off and stay off drugs and aid the victims of abuse and their families. That was meant to be more than a mere public relations exercise. It was an idea to use the extra funds from such a sour source for such sweet and serious purposes, to supplement, not to substitute, what the Government are doing with taxpayers' money. Alas, that is not to be but I hope that when we consider confiscation of the proceeds of other profitable types of crime, we might debate the idea again.
At the start of my speech I said that the fight against drug abuse and trafficking is a national fight. That is why the Opposition have been as insistent as the Government over the Bill and why we shall continue to call for and support every sensible measure to combat drug addiction and its sad and savage consequences.
To underline our concern and approach, I now want to make the Government an offer. The Labour Opposition are ready to consider appropriate ways in which we might join in the work of the interdepartmental group on drug misuse, chaired by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, or in any other appropriate work. Fighting and winning the war against drug abuse is a job for all of us here and in all parts of the country at every level. It involves young people, parents, employers, voluntary groups, trade unions and everyone who cares about the nation's tomorrow. We are ready to play our part and discuss with the Secretary of State for the Home Department the offer that I have just made. We wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book and success when it comes into operation.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I was going to begin my speech by saying what a pleasant surprise it was to come into the Chamber in mid-week and find so much accord and so little argument. However, barely had the Third Reading commenced than the House was invaded by a rabble of synthetically angry Labour supporters who sought to raise, rudely and discourteously to those hon. Members who were concerned with this important Bill, a matter which was puny by comparison. The only object of the exercise could have been to try to get the maximum publicity for a mischief-making sordid manoeuvre.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who has tried so hard to present

a united, sensible and constructive front, should have been embarrassed by the activity of his colleagues. If the Labour party felt so strongly about the Bill, that might have been more evident if we had seen more of its members in the empty ranks behind the hon. Gentleman whom I have so greatly praised.
I wish to congratulate the Government, in general, and my hon. Friend the Minister, in particular, on a Bill which will strike a substantial blow against the contemptible drug trafficker and the truly horrifying drug trade. and on moving so quickly to put the Bill on the statute book. I was not privileged to take part in the discussions which resulted in changes and improvements to the Bill during its passage since Second Reading. Improvements have been made to the mechanism through which the Bill's framework will operate.
At the beginning of the discussions on the Bill, anxieties were expressed about safeguards. I hope that those have been ironed out. If they have not, they can, of course, be further considered in another place. There was anxiety about the laundering provisions. The issue is difficult, but it has been dealt with by the Government with great good sense.
Anxiety has arisen about cocaine kits which are on sale in Soho. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for offering to consider the matter further. The public would not expect the Government to say—I do not suppose, in the light of what my hon. Friend said, that they will—that there is nothing that can be done. Of course something can be done if we have the will. I am encouraged to know that my hon. Friend is determined to ensure that something is done. I am optimistic that that problem will be solved before the Bill reaches the statute book.
Alarm greeted the announcement of this measure at the Conservative party conference. It was thought by some that it was contrary to all the principles of justice that the burden of proof might be placed upon the defendant. That fear has been shown to be baseless. There never has been a need for the strict canons of evidence to be applied in the sentencing process. When a man has been convicted of a crime, the burden of proof that the proceeds of crime were present and identifiable will still have to be discharged in court in the normal way.
It is astonishing, when one thinks about it, that the removal of the benefits of crime seems to have become such a novel concept. We talk about not allowing anyone to benefit from his crime, but confiscation has hardly been the basis of punishment for serious crime in this country since the forfeiture of property on conviction for felony was abolished. That was brutal and involved the complete extinction of all the rights and interests of persons who were convicted of felony. In the days long before the welfare state, the entire family suffered complete deprivation. It was necessary that the rules of a harsh and unfair age should have been corrected. But we seem to have swung too far in the opposite direction. It is only with legislation such as this that we return to the principle that everyone will uphold —that a man should not benefit from the proceeds of his crime.
The first response of the law-abiding citizen when someone commits a crime is, "Let him not benefit from it." Only afterwards do we consider to what extent the offender should be further punished.
We have still not confidently grasped that principle. We have not, for example, seriously considered using the precedent of this Bill to deal with the most serious of fraud


cases. I advocated as much the other day when we were debating the Roskill proposals. I hope that if the principles contained in this Bill are seen to be successful and helpful in deterring crime, we shall be able to extend them so that the substantial benefits which result from some of the frauds that are committed today can likewise be taken from the offender.
To remove the enjoyment of the proceeds of crime when a person is sentenced must be a further deterrent. Previously drug offenders could say, "I may have to go to prison, but my wife and children will benefit." Prison might not be so great a deterrent. Prison was sometimes not considered important by offenders who had not previously done much to benefit their wives and children. Or the offender may have said, "I shall have a lot of money to enjoy when I come out."
Those of us who have been engaged in the criminal process in the courts for a number of years know that men convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to four, five or six years' imprisonment have happily served the sentence confident in the knowledge that when they came out they would be able to enjoy £250,000 of ill-gotten gains accumulated from the offence. If the Bill is as efficient as we hope it will be, that will not be allowed to happen. There will be less temptation for offenders to commit crime. Crime might reduce rather than increase.
The law-abiding citizen will think it right that an effort is being made to stop the criminal enjoying the benefits of the most horrifying of all crimes—drug trafficking. It is a crime of multiple murder, because many people die when they are led into drug addiction and drug dependence. The horror of drugs in our society is not a figment of our imagination; it is happening. There has been a great deal of criticism of television recently in this place, but one of television's great achievements has been the portrayal of how horrifying are the effects of drug addiction on young people.
We have the record of what has happened in the United States to show how much worse the problem could become. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), who has led the Home Affairs Select Committee, has recently returned from observing the scene in the United States. He warned us that in the United States the industry is second only to the motor industry in its size and turnover, which runs at perhaps $100 billion a year. It is almost too frightening to contemplate something like that here in the coming months and years.
The United States has taken measures upon which this Bill is based. The money confiscated is spent on anti-drug measures and the building of prisons in the United States. I hope that the money which is seized from those terrible criminals will be put to constructive use in the prevention of crime and the deterrence of further crime in this country. Again, to deprive drug gangs of the finance on which they would found future drug activity is so sensible and desirable that one can only be surprised that we did not think it right to take such action long ago.
I hope that the Government will not rest on their laurels when they have put the Bill on the statute book. This important measure is long overdue. It will not solve all our drug problems. More effort must be devoted to stopping the production of drugs. That requires determined

international effort. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on initiating activities internationally which will help to reduce that evil.
More effort must be devoted to the education of young people in our society to warn them of the appalling dangers of drug addiction. I compliment my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on the steps they have taken in this regard. The broadcasting authorities should be praised for bringing the dangers of drug addiction so closely into our homes so that we and our children understand the miserable and appalling consequences of addiction.
More effort must be directed towards stopping the importation of drugs through an adequate Customs and Excise body and with properly trained officers. The Government must be congratulated on changing their policy on the reduction of Custom and Excise officers which will strengthen the barriers against this evil. We must devote more effort to catching offenders through more and properly trained police officers. The guilty must be convicted and in that regard we can take pride in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and other legislation which make the conviction of the guilty more likely while at the same time protecting society against the risks of conviction of the innocent.
There must be more effort to treat the afflicted victims. I have a great deal of sympathy with the final words of the hon. Member for Erdington. All of us must be concerned with the victim. This type of legislation stops future victims or reduces the number of future victims and this is the most positive action we can take. We must, however, concern ourselves with the treatment of those who have unfortunately already fallen foul of addiction.
At the end of the day the whole community must turn itself, not into a neighbourhood watch force, but a community watch force to identify the victims and the traffickers and to be prepared to report them to the police and to support the police in their activities to stamp out this evil. It is only by action on all these fronts that we shall have a chance of controlling the horrifying scourge of drug addiction and diminishing and hopefully destroying the potentiality of its grip upon our society.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall not detain the House long because several hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
I congratulate the Minister on the fair passage through which he has captained the Bill. The fair passage of the Bill has been especially remarkable because it is not one of those anodyne Bills which raise no issues of principle. This is not a Bill which avoids tackling head on some troubling civil liberty implications. There are those of us on both sides of the House who have had to examine our consciences and to judge carefully whether we were prepared to countenance breaches of what we would sometimes regard as almost sanctified civil liberty principles in order to meet the needs of the public interest.
I agree with the Minister on the need for international co-operation. Unless true international co-operation can be achieved, many of the aims of the Bill will fail. Such co-operation could prevent the cultivation of dangerous drugs, in many countries. The Minister is right in saying that there is absolutely no use in this Parliament introducing what some may regard as draconian measures


if elsewhere in the world there is no let-up in the effort to prevent the pushing of drugs grown in those areas to people in the towns and cities of Britain.
We have sadly reached the stage when the drugs with which we are principally concerned, heroin and cocaine, are not only available in cities such as London, Manchester and Liverpool. I have been told by police officers that such drugs are available even in remote rural areas such as in my own constituency of Montgomery. They are available in the small towns and villages of rural Wales and rural England.
Against that background, I have decided that the Bill, despite some of its more worrying implications, must be supported. However, without seeking to sound a note of dissent, I am aware that there are many outside the House and many in the other place—not shackled by electoral constraint or by the sounds of clanking electoral chains—who still have some reservations about parts of the Bill.
The discussions on the Bill have not adequately tackled the implications for third parties. I hope that those matters will be considered in another place and that the Bill will emerge from there with an assurance for us that third parties will never run the risk of losing property which they have purchased or acquired in good faith. I believe that that can be achieved.
I have already exchanged letters with the Minister on the question of the use of powers similar to these in the much broader range of criminal offences. I look forward to the day when we can see the Hodgson report—not just a carefully chosen part of that report—expanded in applicability to a much wider area of criminal law.
I welcome what the Minister has said concerning the examination undertaken by the Government of the sale of cocaine kits. The sale of such kits is a wicked activity. I was privileged to be one of the sponsors of a Bill which dealt with the prohibition on the sale of glue sniffing kits. I believe that that was the first of what may end up as a series of statutory provisions which will ensure that profit is not made by the criminally greedy out of the misery of others. We must take steps to close the loopholes which enable, for example, unprincipled newsagents to hang, inside the door of their shops, the equipment which causes misery and death. I hope that the Government will ensure that adequate provisions are put on the statute book.
I fear that the Minister may have a false sense of security due to the assent from all parties to the Bill. I suspect that the aplomb and the dispassion with which he viewed the discourteous chaos which broke about around him during the debate will not have passed unnoticed. We may find that he is shortly translated, by promotion, to that graveyard of political ambitions, the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope not.

Mr. Hanley: The members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on their visit to the United States to investigate the terribly serious state of cocaine taking in that country discovered that there are three major areas involved in the drug trade. There is the supply, the demand and the profit. If one cuts off one of those three legs of the stool, there is a good chance of the other two dwindling by themselves.
The Bill deals with one of those areas. It does little to deal with the supply of drugs or the demand for drugs. Separate measures must be taken by the Government and

successive Governments to deal with those areas. It deals for the first time with the profit elements in drug trafficking and the House should not only be grateful for but proud of that. Within a short time, the House has got to the bottom of this part of the triangle of drug trafficking and, in a scene of supreme co-operation, has managed to produce a Bill that is not only effective but has attracted agreement from both sides of the House. The House will be ennobled by the passage of this legislation.
On behalf of the House, I thank both my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). Twice in less than a day we have seen what co-operation between the two great parties can bring to matters of tremendous importance and concern. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member were in the Chamber just before 2 o'clock this morning co-operating on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill. Again, just over 12 hours later, the two of them are constructively introducing a Bill that brings us far closer to an answer to this awful problem. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have shown such co-operation that any future coalition, if we were to have one, would have to look to them both. I just wonder who would be the Home Secretary.
The Bill creates three new powers. The first is the power to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking; the second is the new offence of assisting another to retain the proceeds of drug trafficking; and the third is the new offence of disclosing information that might prejudice a drug trafficking investigation. Only last Christmas, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
The prospects of vast profits is a powerful lure, and a major reason why criminals are drawn into the evil trade of illicit drugs. Even the risk of long prison sentences is acceptable to some if a life of affluence awaits them on release. We have to ensure that drug traffickers simply will not have a chance of enjoying the proceeds of their contemptible activities and, just as important, that they and their associates have nothing left to finance further crimes.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing to the House legislation that will leave the House achieving exactly what he intended such a short while ago.
Let us look at the background. The Government's proposals for tracing and confiscating all the proceeds of the drug trafficking were developed in consultation with those directly involved not only in the operation of the new powers, including the police, Customs and representatives of the banks, but with representatives of other nations that have experienced this evil. The recommendations in the Bill can clearly be placed on three sources. The first is the fifth report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs, on which I am proud to serve, and which has been led so honourably and conscientiously by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), and upon which the hon. Member for Erdington served. The second source is the publication "The Profits of Crime and their Recovery", the report of the Howard League working party chaired by Sir Derek Hodgson.
The third source is evidence from my hon. Friend the Minister. It is rare in Select Committee experience that wherever the Committee has travelled, whatever it has seen, whatever the evidence that it has studied, the Minister has been there before it. It is so often the experience of a Select Committee that it recommends that a Minister should go and see what it has seen. In this case, my hon. Friend had seen it before the Committee and it is gratifying that the Minister and the Committee came to


the same conclusions in the same spirit of co-operation that we have seen today. It is also gratifying that the Select Committee, in its unanimous report, made several recommendations, some of which have been included in the Bill.
The need for the proposed new powers was illustrated by Operation Julie in 1978. Those convicted after that investigation had manufactured and sold LSD on a vast scale. Huge profits had been made and the prosecution was able to trace £750 million worth of profits to assets in the hands of the defendants. In addition to long-term imprisonment, the court made an order for the forfeiture of the profits, but on appeal to the other place it was held that Parliament had never meant for the forefeiture orders to be used as a means of stripping traffickers of the profits of their unlawful enterprise.
Members of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Minister, having seen the assets on display in Florida, know full well that we have to seize assets. The law as it stood after Operation Julie said that the power could be used only to forefeit property directly related to the offence, such as drugs themselves, but not to the equipment for making, the vehicles used for carrying, and the cash that was about to be used or had been handed for them. In Miami, the Select Committee saw the houses, aeroplanes and vast boats—almost ships—that had been financed out of the proceeds of drug trafficking. It is obscene to see the wealth that the profits from drugs have bought.
It is frightening to envisage the power that drugs could buy. The Committee members stood in a small room, 10 ft by 15 ft, among $10 billion worth of cocaine and marijuana. That showed what wealth can be accumulated in a small space. I have been a chartered accountant for some years and have been privy to many stock takings. I have never stood in such a small space and been confronted by such vast wealth in assets. One could hire an army ready to die for the gold of that money. I am told that in Africa mercenaries are bought for less than that, and if they knew where that room was, the money could be multiplied 10 times over.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the industry is worth $100 billion a year and is second only to the motor car industry. It is bigger than the gross domestic product of 15 out of 25 OECD nations. Therefore, it is an industry bigger than many independent democratic nations. One can imagine the damage it could do if put into the wrong hands. It is vital that we have the powers given by the Bill to ensure that people think again before taking to crime.
Confiscation orders are only part of the Bill's powers, but they are harsh. If a person has been convicted in the Crown court of drug trafficking offences, the court is required to make a confiscation order that deprives the offender of the value of the proceeds of his trafficking. That will be in addition to whatever sentence the court otherwise feels is appropriate to the offence. That is not just getting down to bedrock; it is moving further.
The confiscation order will not be limited to the proceeds of the offences for which the defendant is being sentenced, but takes into account all trafficking generally, and will do so by reversing the burden of proof. No hon. Member would take such a step lightly — one has to consider it carefully. The Select Committee considered it hard, and still recommended this step. To reverse the

burden of proof may be seen to be completely against the civil liberties of most of our citizens. It runs against British justice, which we have come to know and respect.
In these cases, the court will be able to assume, unless the contrary is shown, that all the defendant's assets, together with any profits that have passed through his hands in the previous six years, represent the proceeds of drug trafficking. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the amendment which clarified that period, not only increasing it from five to six years but clarifying the period over which the assets might be calculated. In the original Bill, I believe that it was unclear and could have led to delays in court procedure, but the Bill is now absolutely clear.
Some people have expressed concern about the reversal of the burden of proof. I think it should be known outside the House that the prosecution must still prove that a person is guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. Having done so, it is easier for the defendant, rather than the prosecution, to explain how he acquired the money. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask the defence to establish what part of the offender's assets has been legally acquired. If he is unable or unwilling to answer, then, following a drug conviction, it is quite legitimate for the court to assume that it was obtained illegally.
On the matter of the realisation of assets, once the confiscation order has been made the High Court will have power to appoint a receiver to legalise any of the offender's assets to satisfy the order. Assets which have been in the hands of the offender but have since been transferred to a third party for less than full value may also be included as long as the transfer has taken place within the previous six years or the assets can be shown to represent the proceeds of drug trafficking.
In Washington, New York and Florida we saw that imprisonment often has no effect. We heard of agents in the drug enforcement administration being murdered, and in the past few days we have even heard of many employees of an airline being persuaded and bribed to carry drugs. We travelled by that airline. We know how the Customs officers are trained to spot the profile of those who are likely to be carrying drugs. We know that proper training for Customs officers is vital and keeping them up to date with modern techniques is expenive but important.
I do not believe that the Customs officer we met in Atlanta, Georgia, was aware that between 50 and 100 employees of the airline who passed information to him about those who were likely to be trafficking in drugs were trafficking in drugs themselves. I have no idea whether he had any contact with them, but I know what a difficult task it is to spot such individuals who will go to any lengths to make what can be millions of pounds through their evil trade.
However, imprisonment is important. I am glad that if the confiscation order is not satisfied in full the Bill will provide for increased maximum periods of imprisonment for default. The confiscation order may not be satisfied perhaps because some of the offender's property has been placed outside the jurisdication of the court, put away in some other country or given to another individual who cannot be traced. I am glad that the current maximum of 12 months' imprisonment will be increased dramatically. The Bill provides for a new progressive scale for the non-payment of the confiscation order with a maximum of 10 years for default of sums over £1 million. I hope that my


hon. Friend the Minister will consistently increase that period in the light of experience so that it will be effective as time passes. Those periods of imprisonment for default will be in excess of any other prison sentence imposed by the court.
The Minister mentioned investigative powers which are so important. The Bill provides new powers to investigate the financial dealings of drug traffickers. We need to investigate those financial dealings, but it is not easy. We know how difficult it is to investigate the financial affairs of those involved in fraud in the City but, with respect, these sums of money are even bigger. They can mean, as we saw in America, multi-billion pound organisations with money laundering so clever that it is almost impossible to trace the funds through to the businesses—some often legitimate — set up by the traffickers. It costs a great deal of money to investigate fraud; and to investigate fraud on the scale of multi-billion pound organisations would be even more difficult.
In the Bill, when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is engaged in drug trafficking the police or Customs officers will be able to apply to a circuit judge for an order requiring the disclosure of information which could be of substantial value to the investigation. The powers will be available in respect of information held by banks and other financial institutions and also information held by the Inland Revenue and other Government Departments. We need that co-operation.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will look again at the powers in respect of people such as bank clerks. In Committee I said that the legal committee of the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers shared a real concern
that the effect of the present wording would be to imperil the ordinary lowly bank clerk who might be said to have had grounds for suspicion about a particular transaction. All of the clerk's training will have been based on the bank's duty of confidentiality to its customers, which is enshrined in law by the decision in the case of Tournier and the National Provincial and Union Bank of England." — [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 30 January 1986; c. 5.]
My hon. Friend is right to look at that matter again. In fact, the change of words which I suggested in Committee seems to have attracted careful research. I believe that eventually it will be shown that it needs some amendment, or an announcement in another place as to how the legislation will work.
I am a little worried that suspicion, for example, by a police officer, is not enough upon which to make an arrest or charge an offender in any other type of legislation. It is commonplace in our law that no jury feels it can convict on suspicion alone. To raise the suggestion that mere suspicion by a bank employee who is taking part in otherwise routine bank transactions could result in a person being found guilty of an offence carrying 14 years' imprisonment—which, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee, is the second highest penalty —shows how serious the matter is. It is still an extremely high penalty for suspicion. I do not want my hon. Friend to believe that in mentioning that I am trying to weaken the Bill. I want to ensure that juries convict but that they convict more often than they release those who, were it not for that provision, might get off.
Another part of the Bill concerns the restraint order. Once proceedings have been instituted the prosecution will be able to apply to the High Court for an order freezing any assets which may subsequently be needed to satisfy a

confiscation order imposed on a defendant. We need restraint orders because they are another weapon in the armoury. As I mentioned before, two new offences are created by the Bill which facilitate the retention, control or investment of the proceeds of trafficking by another person, knowing or having reason to suspect that the person is a trafficker. I believe that that penalty is valid. As I have mentioned, I do not wish anybody to think that I want to water it down.
The other offence is prejudicing a drug traffic investigation. That has been directed at those who, learning that police or Customs officers have obtained or applied to a circuit judge for an order requiring disclosure of information, tell the suspect that his affairs are being investigated. I am glad that that will be punishable by a sentence of at least five years.
The Government's record which culminates with the Bill and which will continue is vital. The United Kingdom is spearheading a campaign to cut production in the source countries. Already nearly £4 million has been given to Pakistan. I visited Pakistan with the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. We looked into the drug problem there and the question of international co-operation. I am glad that opium crop production has been cut. I am also glad that £1 million is being used to combat the illicit production of cocaine in south America, that during the past five years the number of Customs and Excise officers has more than doubled and that 150 additional officers are to be appointed this year.
I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has taken on board the words of the hon. Member for Erdington, that if it is to be an effective deterrent the force must have sufficient means with which to provide the deterrent. A national information and education campaign has been launched. Parole for drug traffickers has been severely restricted. Full Government support has been given to private Members' Bills such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) who last year so brilliantly steered through Parliament his Bill. The strength of the regional crime squads has been increased by 20 per cent. and a national drugs intelligence unit has been established.
The Bill will be an effective weapon, but we must not forget those who are the victims of drug abuse. Education is vital if we are to cut down the demand for drugs, and international co-operation is absolutely vital if we are to cut down the supply of drugs. By legislation we can help to cut the triangle of drugs: the supply, the demand and the profit. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the hon. Member for Erdington and all right hon. and hon. Members who have joined together to help to protect the millions of people who might otherwise not only be injured by but die from the drugs menace.

Mr. Tom Sackville: The Bill addresses the most serious problem that can affect young people. I was actutely aware that this problem would arise. During the early 1970s I lived in the United States where I became aware of the fact that a huge proportion of New York city's population was affected by drug addiction and that it caused social and criminal problems. They were so significant that they dominated New York city. Everybody was aware that muggings, street crime generally and gang


warfare in the city were largely caused by drugs. This continues to be a problem in many parts of the United States. I am afraid that it is now becoming a very large problem in the United Kingdom.
No one should underestimate, however, the difficulty faced by the Government in trying to do something about it. Drug addiction causes immense difficulties. It is a form of affliction that has many causes but whose cures are not obvious. The Government undertake various forms of activity. It is extraordinarily difficult, with 40 million people arriving in this country, to detect the importation of drugs, even when Customs and Excise and the police become very good at detection in a particular area—for example, at Heathrow. Drugs enter this country in various ways—for instance, in cargo containers—but when the gap is plugged in one area it opens up somewhere else.
Our police forces are not equipped to deal with the detection and distribution of drugs. The manpower that this would involve and the degree of co-operation from the public that would be required are not attainable. It is very difficult to find the places where dealings in drugs take place and to bring to book the people who are involved.
There is much controversy over the method of treating addicts and the cost of providing treatment on the National Health Service. However, if we can cure 30 per cent., 50 per cent. or 70 per cent. of those addicts who present themselves for treatment, we shall remove them from the streets where they do harm to themselves and to others by selling drugs and involving others in drug abuse.
We have been trying to establish a drug treatment centre in my Bolton constituency. The problems involved in trying to do so within our highly decentralised National Health Service are enormous. The agreement of the professionals has to be obtained. Furthermore, the public has to agree to expenditure of this kind, because that money would otherwise be spent on other forms of treatment. Fortunately, some progress has at last been made.
We are also trying to educate children not to become involved with drugs. This is another highly contentious area. Many people feel that it could be counter-productive even to mention the subject to children. I am glad that the Home Office's interdepartmental committee is attempting to co-ordinate the efforts to educate children, adults and professionals about how to stop the spread of drug abuse. But it is not easy. Anything that can be done to attack the problem at its core is vital. The Bill falls very much into that category.
Drug trafficking involves large sums of money, and very sophisticated criminals and criminal techniques have come to the fore. It is necessary therefore to remove the incentive for criminals to become involved in this trade. We shall then be able to interrupt the supply of drugs. This legislation, for which many right hon. and hon. Members have been asking for a long time and which was foreshadowed in the United States and elsewhere, will make a considerable contribution. If semi-organised criminals who have been involved in other forms of crime begin to dabble in the drugs trade but then find that they are subject to a new range of legal penalties because their assets are seized and because they are put under surveillance by financial institutions as suspected drugs traffickers, it will act as a considerable disincentive to them.
If it is not possible immediately to seize the assets of a suspect who is arrested because he is suspected of trafficking in drugs, is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department satisfied that it will be impossible for that individual to exercise his right to contact his lawyer or somebody else, who may then be able very quickly to move his financial assets out of the country and thus defeat the objectives of the Bill? I ask him to look at the possibility of introducing an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so that criminals in this category can be held incommunicado for long enough to obtain a restraint order, thereby ensuring that this cannot happen.
Drug addiction is a disease that affects society. However, unlike other diseases, many people are making money out of it. They are cynically exploiting young people for gain. The Bill will make only a small dent in the drugs problem, but is it not morally right that these horrific criminals who exploit young people for enormous financial gain should be brought to book and stripped of all their assets? In this way, even if they are imprisoned, they will be unable to enjoy the proceeds of their crime at a later date, which is what is happening now. What good is it locking up a person for a crime if a year later, or even four or five years later, because the sums are so large in some cases, he knows that, having served the prison sentence, he has a fortune awaiting him outside? What good is it if we cannot ensure that that person is stripped not only of his liberty but of the proceeds of his heinous crimes?

Mr. Keith Raffan: I wish briefly to give my particular and personal welcome to the smooth passage of the Bill through the House, following as it does my private Member's Bill, the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act. This, too, has been a non-partisan measure which has been given wholehearted support from every quarter of the House. For my Bill, I managed to get 11 sponsors representative not only of every party in the House but of every faction within each party—from saturated wet to bone dry on my own side and from militant moderate to immoderate militant in the Labour party. Indeed, I was glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) even though he thought that I would never get it through the House. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who was so cagey about becoming a sponsor of my Bill eventually refusing to do so, has redeemed himself by the admirable way he has responded to the Bill on behalf of the Opposition during its various stages through the House.
There is no difference between murder by heroin for financial gain and murder by shotgun in the course of armed robbery. If those found guilty of burglary and fraud are not allowed to retain their ill-gotten assets, why should drug traffickers be allowed to do so?
The Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, is potentially "a sharp new weapon" against major drug traffickers. How sharp it proves to be depends largely upon the implementation of the legislation.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary knows, I am most concerned about international co-operation, which is vital. How sharp this weapon is depends to a great extent on that. We are dealing with highly sophisticated criminals. They are used to


laundering the assets of their crimes through a multiplicity of bank accounts and properties in a multiplicity of countries. I know that there are ways in which we can proceed against them. As my hon. Friend said on Report, we can proceed against legitimate assets here in this country to the value of the tainted assets abroad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) made clear, we can add an additional custodial sentence if a major drug trafficker found guilty does not know his financial obligation and pay the full value of his tainted assets to the court. An additional sentence can be added to any other sentence he receives.
But progress in international co-operation is vital. Bilateral agreements with other countries are time-consuming and difficult to conclude effectively. The alternative is by conventions initiated through the Council of Europe or the United Nations.
The 35 member states of the United Nations most intimately involved in the problem are putting forward a draft convention but that is only 35 out of 150 members of the United Nations. If we do not proceed from the stage of a draft convention following the meeting in Vienna we must consider the question of a Council of Europe convention, as my hon. Friend has suggested. Indeed, he is on record as saying that
that is not a second rate option.
I hope that he will follow though on this should the meeting in Vienna prove to be not satisfactory.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations has proposed that in 1987 there should be a world conference at ministerial level to consider the whole question of drug trafficking. I hope that we will take the initiative at that world conference to ensure that the measures we have taken can be implemented effectively. Their effectiveness depends upon international co-operation. As my right hon. Friend said, it can be a sharp new weapon. Indeed, "Justinian" in the Financial Times, as quoted in Committee by myself and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on Second Reading, described the Bill as
one of the most fearsome pieces of legislation in modern times, both in the investigative powers it gives to public authorities and in its penal sanctions".
I do not think that I can pay any greater tribute to the Minister and his officials than that. We are dealing with one of the most evil criminal trades in the world. Our response to that trade should be an extremely fearsome piece of legislation. If in Standing Committee and on Report we have made it more fearsome, we have improved on the original.
The Bill now moves to another place. I hope that we shall see it enacted before the summer. Meanwhile I look forward to hearing from the Minister what he anticipates will then happen, what progress he believes we can make towards achieving vital international co-operation through bilateral agreements with other countries, through a United Nations convention or through a Council of Europe convention on drug trafficking.

Mr. Mellor: I thank all those who have contributed to the debate on Third Reading for their kind remarks about the measure and my contribution to it. I assure those who spoke of the overall context into which the proposal has to be set that in no sense will the Bill's passage through the House and the other place represent any slackening in the Government efforts. Indeed, we shall be spurred on to greater achievements.
As I have said before, all of us who have studied the problem know that there is no escape from the drugs problem down the law and order route; success will come only because people reject drugs. As long as there is a market for drugs, there will always be ruthless people ready to meet that demand. What we have done today, I hope, will help to make the path of the drug trafficker a much less attractive one, and one fraught with many more perils than hitherto.
I thank particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for some of the points he made. Dealing first with what he said about Customs officers, I should like to draw a line under some of the controversy that has raged in that respect. We now see a clear way forward. When I went to Heathrow, I was impressed by their work. One had only to go into the frightful room where they have to wait for people to pass motions to see whether they have a swallower on their hands to realise that it is a difficult job we ask our Customs officers to do, and we are lucky to have men of such talent and capability to carry out the work.
I welcome too what the hon. Gentleman said about closer co-operation. If I may say so, I take that in the spirit in which it was offered, and I should like to follow it through. In dealing with an issue as important as this, we should focus on what we can do together and should not regard this as another opportunity for partisan dispute.
I thank those hon. Members who commented on the proposal I canvassed about dealing with the menace of cocaine kits. From what has been said, I gather that my proposals meet with approval. I shall therefore continue with the efforts we are making to put them into final form and to examine whether they can be included in the Bill in the other place or whether some other way may be found. Given the amount of co-operation that exists, I am sure that this can be taken forward.
The Bill now leaves the House and goes to the other place. I hope that it does so with the good wishes of all those present and that in the other place it will be dealt: with in the same spirit that it has been dealt with here, as a necessary part of the battle against drugs on which we are all embarked.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the private business set down for consideration this day.

Orders of the Day — British Leyland

7 pm

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I rose on a point of order nearly two hours ago, because we had heard that a press conference was taking place in which the Department of Trade and Industry was briefing journalists on further developments in the British Leyland saga. It was and is our view that such information should be given first to the House, not to the press, and we therefore asked for a statement.
Since then, we have learnt that the Secretary of State himself briefed the lobby. We further heard, first, that three more bidders in addition to those named yesterday have come forward for the Land Rover division; secondly, that there is the likelihood of a reference of the General Motors bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and, thirdly, that a bid deadline has been set for mid-March, giving most companies only a few weeks to prepare while General Motors has had nine months of secret negotiations.
We contend that this is proper material for a statement to the House so that the Secretary of State can be properly questioned about the new developments. We feel this all the more strongly since our request to the Minister for a statement was turned down only this morning, and our request for a Standing Order No. 10 debate was refused only yesterday.
The Leader of the House concluded our earlier exchanges today by saying that the matter could be considered through the usual channels. May I, therefore, press him again to prevail upon his bashful colleague, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to face the House tonight?

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Many hon. Members, not least myself, are determined to see a British solution to this problem. However, I urge the shadow Leader of the House not to play this game. It is a mischievous and dangerous game. If the message goes out that we are continually trying to drag this affair before the House at this stage, it would be even more dangerous. There are enough watchdogs in the House for Britain's interests without continually suggesting—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a point of order for me?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: May I make this final point? The suggestion that every time a Minister holds a press conference or conducts a private briefing upon the problem he must make a statement in the House is mischievous and dangerous, and I urge the House to have nothing to do with the matter.

Mr. Terry Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Since the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was not in the Chamber when I made my earlier point of order—I do not criticise him for that—he is not aware that his criticism is completely misplaced. The point of order that I raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker related to a briefing taking place on developments in the British Leyland affair, and I asked that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should tell the House about such developments before he told the press.
It subsequently transpired that the Secretary of State found the time during a busy day to come to the Palace of Westminster to brief lobby journalists about the matter, but is now saying that there are no significant developments on which to make a statement. Surely the Secretary of State would not have found time in his busy day to come here and tell lobby journalists what they could have read for themselves in yesterday's Hansard.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said that it was mischievous for Members of this House to try to get a statement on these important matters in the House of Commons. There is nothing mischievous about that. The replies from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday were totally unsatisfactory. It is essential that these crucial matters, which concern the livelihoods of many thousands of workpeople throughout the country, many of whom we represent, should be chased with the figure responsible on that feeble Front Bench, and the figure responsible is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He should come down here and make a statement on these matters and not get the easy ride that he does from press representatives.

Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
May I make a slightly different suggestion from that made by the shadow Leader of the House? The Leader of the House is listening intently to our exchanges, and he should be aware that the mood on both sides of the House is that we do not like Ministers giving detailed briefings on Government attitudes towards developments in the British motor car and truck industries without giving them to the House first. A statement tonight done in a rush would do nothing but create an attitude of uncertainty and panic. I hasten to add that, if there is a statement, I shall be here. However, it would be far better to have a statement tomorrow afternoon or on Thursday, after the Cabinet has taken a view on the Government's industrial policy towards the future of the car and truck industries. A considered statement would be much better than a panic statement, but a statement we must have.

Mr. Rob Hayward: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Are we not trying to pursue a new constitutional point, in that every time a Minister gives a briefing to the lobby, we must have a statement?

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
You have deprecated several times the practice of Ministers notifying the press or appearing on radio or television without notifying the House of the details first. As for the point about mischief-making, you will know, Mr. Speaker, that had not the matter been raised originally by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), we would have had no information from the Government about what has happened. The manner in which the matter was raised originally gave rise to the present anxiety and controversy.
If a Minister deliberately treats the House with contempt, are we not entitled to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that a statement is made as soon as possible? As my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East


(Mr. Faulds) said, this matter concerns many of our constituents, not only those directly employed by British Leyland. Many firms in the black country and the west midlands rely for their continuation on supplying component parts to that firm. In those circumstances, we must be entitled to a statement, and that statement should be made tonight.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for any of these matters. The House knows that I cannot force the Government to make a statement. However, I notice from the Order Paper that there will be an Adjournment debate tonight on this very subject. It is likely that during that debate the Minister will say something which hon. Members who are making these points of order may wish to hear.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not curious that the House should ask for such a statement when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has assured the House several times that, if he had anything further to report, he would do so? He made a statement to the House yesterday. Today, he met the lobby, as I understand it, further to explore what he said to the House yesterday. If there is nothing more to explain to the House, there is no point in his coming to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer points of order on such matters. I repeat that we shall have an Adjournment debate on this very matter. I think that we should wait to hear what happens then.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order from the three hon. Members who have been rising.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Not only was this matter raised by the Opposition on the original private notice question, in a half-day debate and during a Standing Order No. 10 application yesterday, but it is one which many people believe questions the Government's good faith in respect of their election mandate.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when you considered the application under Standing Order No. 10, you had to take account of whether there should be a debate in Government time. You turned down the application, for your own reasons, which might have been influenced by the statement and the subsequent questions that you heard yesterday. If there have been further developments—there clearly have been—[HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] It appears most likely; there would not be such interest in this point of order otherwise—are the Government not failing to pay proper respect to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, by not making the next statement to the House on a subject on which an application under Standing Order No. 10 might arise?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really do not think that I can help the House in this matter. I fully understand its importance, but, as I have already said and as the House well knows, I am not responsible for statements. I and the House know, however, that there is an Adjournment debate on the subject.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps I might also contribute by endorsing what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said about this being a topic of great and general public interest which properly has to be considered by the House. Above all, it must be considered by the House in terms which are reasonable and well structured.
I want to counter the issue that gives rise to the claim that there should be a statement at this time of the evening or later. A lobby briefing was given in which there was some initiative in Government policy which resulted in journalists knowing what has not yet been revealed to the House. I have to tell the House that this was a matter of consideration through the usual channels. I am sorry that there could not be agreement.
I want to assert, however, that there is nothing extraordinary about a Minister seeing lobby journalists. Moreover, those lobby journalists know no more than hon. Members. There was no question of policy commitments being carried forward. [Interruption.] It is a matter of accepting the good faith of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I believe that he is entitled to claim that. Controversy can arise in a keen and lively fashion in this matter, but I do not accept the undermining of good faith in my right hon. Friend.
You have also said, Mr. Speaker, that the matter will arise on the Adjournment tonight, but even more important is the fact that this is the type of topic which is naturally at the centre of political interest. If Opposition Members ceased making applications under Standing Order No. 10, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak would pick up the baton. However, a case for a statement to be made this evening has not been made out.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has given a very fair explanation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order only if they are directly concerned with my responsibilities.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The Chairman of Ways and Means set down private business for 7 o'clock. You have previously told the House, Mr. Speaker, that it is improper for a statement to be made on a point of order. So far, 13 minutes of the time of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has been taken up. Will he get injury time?

Mr. Speaker: Private business does not get injury time.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I think that the House has not been satisfied with what the Leader of the House has said. An Adjournment debate replied to by a junior Minister is no substitute for a statement. If we cannot have a statement tonight, can we have one tomorrow?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Biffen: I have already said that this matter is under constant examination, but I will say this to the right hon. Gentleman. After all that has been said about this topic, if this issue, with what it means for working people in the midlands and elsewhere, is to be conducted on the basis


of dressing up the press lobby on the pretext for a debate this evening, we know what the motives of the Opposition are.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can help me.

Orders of the Day — Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Development) Order Confirmation Bill (By Order)

Considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes).

SCHEDULE

PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT)

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 27, leave out '8·5' and insert '5·5'.
In the discussions between the Aberdeen harbour board and the Peterhead authorities, the chairman of the Peterhead trustees had earlier agreed to the amendment and, therefore, I hope that it might at least be accepted. I give notice that when we get to amendment No. 4, I will seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with regard to a manuscript amendment to delete "6·5" and insert "7·5".
It is necessary before dealing with the specifics of the amendments to give some background so that nobody is in doubt about the reasons for them. No one should be in any doubt that, despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) to trivialise and personalise the issue, the amendments are not hostile to the development at Peterhead. The amendments, if carried, would still allow the trustees' objectives for safer and better port facilities to be achieved. Nor should anyone be in any doubt that the objections to the scale of the development come from ports other than Aberdeen.
The amendments in my name have the approval of the Forth port authority and of the Dundee port authority, and the support of the Aberdeen stevedoring company. The amendments would still protect the harbour entrance, calm the waters of the inner and south harbours at Peterhead, increase the length of the cargo berths by 250 per cent., greatly improve facilities for the fishing fleet and allow any known deeply laden fishing vessel to berth. They would also allow for the handling of grain ships up to 6,000 tonnes. The evidence given by the Peterhead harbour master, Captain Auld, which appears on page 765 of the report of the inquiry of the parliamentary commissioners of Tuesday 7 May 1985 is consistent with that.
The amendments are tabled in a genuine spirit of compromise which holds out the prospect of advantage for Aberdeen, but would still meet the stated aims of Peterhead. I resent the intemperate manner in which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan described these amendments as "wrecking amendments". I hope that, even at this late stage, he will accept them. His personal attacks on Mr. John Turner, the general manager of Aberdeen harbour board, are in very bad taste. Mr. Turner cannot respond in kind, but I say on his behalf that he has sought only to do his job properly. I, however, am able to respond to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan's personal attacks on me. I speak for the interests of Aberdeen,


although not under any instructions or orders of the Aberdeen harbour board. I must examine the evidence and form a judgment.
I was deeply resentful when I was telephoned at 7.30 this morning by BBC Radio Aberdeen to be informed that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan had accused me on the radio of double-crossing him last week. Had he made that charge in the House, I believe he would have been asked to withdraw it.
On Second Reading the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan scuttled around the Chamber, advising those of us who were waiting to take part in the debate that he was agreeable to the Bill being referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament for further scrutiny. I was happy with that proposition and prepared to accept the findings of such a Joint Committee, whatever the outcome.
With the knowledge that referral was on offer, I truncated my speech, and I believe that other hon. Members did likewise. Indeed, although we can only speculate, if our speeches had not been so short the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan might not have received the assent of the Chair when he sought to move the closure motion. For reasons that have not been explained to the House, the hon. Member resisted the motion to refer the matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses. In that he was successful, so the will of the House was that the matter should not go to a Joint Committee. Of course, I accept the will of the House.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe the hon. Gentleman is reporting a private discussion. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): There has been nothing out of order in that respect so far.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan can give his own response later.
Given the background which I have described, I utterly refute the charge of double-crossing. Such a charge might well be levelled against the hon. Member if there are to be any such charges.
Following Second Reading, I hoped and believed that bilateral discussions would take place between representatives of the two harbour boards. Discussions have taken place, but they have not achieved agreement. That is unfortunate because we had hoped that that would happen.
The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) asked if it was in order to repeat private discussions, but the discussions have not been in private. The matters have been referred to by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan in both The Press and Journal and the Evening Express in Aberdeen; they have also been referred to by him in conversations on the radio. Therefore, I am saying nothing in the House which has not been said elsewhere.
There have been many discussions among Members of Parliament with constituency interests. That takes me to the events of last Wednesday when the Bill was set down for further parliamentary discussion. During the days immediately preceding Wednesday there was talk of assurances being offered by the trustees of Peterhead harbour board that it would not handle oil-related traffic. As the assurances were not available in writing, efforts were made to ensure discussion on the Floor of the House so that we could find out exactly what the assurances were.
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), to whom I have given advance notice that I would bring his name into the proceedings, is in his place. He put his name to the amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper so that we might discuss the matter further. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has made no secret of the fact—indeed, he has stated publicly—that he warned off his hon. Friend. One of the less colourful phrases which he used was that the hon. Member for Fife, North-East had never seen a fish, except on a plate.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish. He knows perfectly well that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) represents a fishery constituency. If he were to get his facts right, he should be referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). He should read the Order Paper and find out exactly what is on it. Obviously he knows so little about the matter that he cannot even get the basic facts right.

Mr. Hughes: That demonstrates the problem we have had in trying to resolve the matter amicably.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Member should get his facts right.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member had better keep his peace until the time comes for him to speak. I had a pet Great Dane and a pet Doberman Pinscher. Taming a Buchan bulldog is no problem, so he had better behave himself. The hon. Member said that he had publicly warned off his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having told me that he would refer to me. May I say to him, as briefly as I can, that I have never been bullied by anyone to do anything in the House which I do not want to do, and I do not propose to start now. I disapprove considerably of the repetition of loose tittle-tattle and of conversations imagined or overheard in the Lobby outside the Chamber. At the time to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, I had a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), when I told tuna that I was happy to be available for bringing together disparate interests if it would bring about peace in the dispute about fishing harbours. However, I was not prepared to stand in the middle of an argument between two interests where I did not have a direct constituency interest. My constituency interest is in both Peterhead and Aberdeen harbours being available to my constituents when they want to use them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think we should get back to the amendment.

Mr. Hughes: My remarks are germane to the amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I take your point. If the hon. Member for Fife, North-East cares to look up the Aberdeen Press and Journal and Evening Express he will find exactly what was said.
So that the issue might be resolved and so that we might have a discussion on it, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) was invited or encouraged to put his name to the amendments to protect the position. But he was persuaded that the assurances which were talked about last week were acceptable, and he withdrew his name. That left me. late


last Wednesday night, with the position on the amendments and on the motion in relation to Third Reading unprotected. Therefore, I put my name to the blocking motion and to the amendments, for two reasons. First, I wanted to ensure that we might have a discussion on the matters and obtain the response of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Secondly, I wished to see in writing or, more specifically, to read into Hansard the assurances which were apparently on offer. As the editorial in the Aberdeen Evening Express put it last Thursday:
He could do no less.
Indeed, I could do no less than make sure that my constituency interest was protected.
At 6.25 pm today I was given a copy of a letter headed and addressed to Mr. John Turner, general manager, Aberdeen harbour board, which says:
PETERHEAD HARBOURS
(SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT)
ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
In consideration of the Aberdeen Harbour Board withdrawing all their objections to the Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Development) Order Confirmation Bill, I am empowered by the Trustees of the Harbours of Peterhead to confirm that they have agreed:
`We will not seek oil related work for the Peterhead Harbours in the foreseeable future'.
We trust that your Board will find this acceptable as has already been indicated by Mr. Gerald Malone, M.P.
We now have the assurances in writing. They may well be consistent with the initial statement given by the promoters of the Bill. That is not fully acceptable to Aberdeen harbour board. I shall have to make my own judgment, but before giving that I would welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Throughout the period in which we have discussed the Bill we have sought to get consistency among the ports on the east coast of Scotland and to ensure that the objectives of Peterhead harbour trustees have been met, and to do that in the absence of any Government policy or guidance about port facilities available on the east coast which we all know are grossly over capacity.
The amendments are worth while and should be acceptable. They have been put forward in a genuine spirit of compromise and agreement, with one harbour board being willing to consider the problems of the other. I hope a reciprocal case may be made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I should like to put on record my interest in this Bill and speak about the implications of the amendments and the eventual outcome. One of the saddest things about the progress of the Bill is the degree of bitterness that appears to have been generated between two neighbouring harbour authorities on the east coast of Scotland. That has not been an edifying event, nor is it in the best interests of port management and port authorities. Neither of the authorities emerged smelling like roses. The other thing we have witnessed is that it has caused a degree of animosity between Members of the House with neighbouring constituencies who have legitimate interests to defend. I do not want to dwell on that point. That animosity is regrettable, because the objective of all hon. Members must be to secure good neighbourliness.
I should like to see a development that could go ahead without threatening the survival of a neighbouring port while ensuring that another port is not unreasonably held back. The House will realise that in every sense of the word I am the man in the middle, because my constituency has Aberdeen harbour just outside on the south and Peterhead harbour just outside on the north. For that reason I am interested in the success and prosperity of both ports and I regret the conflict that has arisen.
I was interested to hear the contents of the letter that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) read, giving the assurances that seem to make the specific point that Peterhead harbour trustees will not seek to run an oil base in the foreseeable future. While that could not be regarded as a legally binding statement and is open to interpretation, I feel that it is a declaration of good faith. I think that Aberdeen harbour board is more concerned about some of the other activities at Peterhead harbour. They are legitimate activities in which Peterhead is already actively engaged, and it would be unreasonable not to allow those activities to develop.
There is now an element of compromise, and it is unfortunate that we could not get that compromise earlier. It is also unfortunate that we have had a number of false arrangements. Without those the Bill might have gone through the House to greater satisfaction all round not exactly without blood on the floor, but without so many sparks flying between individual hon. Members and between the relevant port authorities.
I hope that we will be able to make progress and allow this Bill to go ahead. That will be a clear statement that Peterhead is seeking to develop its own business in its own right and in its own way to the greater good and prosperity of the north-east of Scotland, and not in a way that is aggressively predatory on its neighbour, because that is clearly not in the interests of the ports of north-east Scotland.
I am as anxious as any other hon. Member to hear the reply of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). I hope that he will reply in a constructive and conciliatory fashion that will enable us to proceed, to ensure that the development of Peterhead can go ahead, and that good relations will be restored between Peterhead and Aberdeen port authorities. Those things are in the interests of all of us who represent the north-east of Scotland.

Mr. Henderson: Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), I am anxious to see both these harbours operating effectively, and I am even farther away from them than he is. A number of fishermen from the east use both harbours and I share with the hon. Member for Gordon the anxiety that there seems to have been a falling out between these harbour authorities. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that neither of the authorities is smelling like roses. Aberdeen harbour would be a busier place and would have greater trade if it was not for the restrictive practices that we have seen there for too many years. Peterhead would do better for itself and better by the fishing industry if it did not overfill its fish boxes.
It may well be that for reasons of parliamentary practicality my hon. Friend or the harbour authorities will make arrangements to bring about peace and get the legislation through. I deplore the fact that that kind of deal is necessary for the reasons that have been advocated. It is a case of one interest using the difficulties of


parliamentary procedure and private legislation to pursue its interests in the House. Private legislation procedures were designed to give legitimate room for objectors to plans that directly affected people in the locality. That is not the kind of thing included in some of the suggestions put forward.
If a local authority or harbour trust or any other owner of a harbour wants to carry out harbour works and has to bring in a provisional order or an order of confirmation, leaving aside whether such a thing ought to have to be done in every case for harbour works, there should be some understanding that the harbour authority must be allowed to do what is necessary for the benefit of its harbour and for the community in which the harbour is set. The considerations about whether a harbour owner should or should not be allowed to carry out the work should be decided on how the work will affect people in the immediate vicinity and not people some distance away who are pursuing commercial interests of their own.

Mr. McQuarrie: I regret that it is necessary for us to come back to the House to deal with this matter yet again. I regret also that I must take issue with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) for his unwarranted attack upon me. It is quite unfair and untrue for the hon. Gentleman to say that I had an agreement before the end of the Second Reading which I did not honour. He knows perfectly well that the two votes taken in this House on 16 January were taken on the closure. He has only to look at the record to see that 119 hon. Members voted in favour of that closure.
The following vote about a referral to the Joint Committee was also defeated. Those two votes reflected the will of the House, and the following day I spoke to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North in the Committee Corridor and I asked him, "What is your position about this Bill?" He said, "As far as I am concerned it is finished. I will accept the will of the House. When it comes to consideration and Third Reading I will not oppose it." I accepted that as the word of an hon. Member.
I spoke to the hon. Member on Wednesday and he gave me to understand that if an assurance was given by Peterhead harbour trustees that they would not seek oil-related work in Peterhead harbour after the extension was completed, that would be satisfactory to him and he would not oppose the consideration and Third Reading. I obtained the assurance about oil-related work from a majority of the trustees and I brought down to the House that evening—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McQuarrie: No, I will not. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. I brought to the House that evening a copy containing signatures of the majority of trustees of Peterhead harbour and I handed a copy to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. In that document is the very wording that the hon. Gentleman has quoted from the copy of the letter which he says he received this evening at 6.25. The Peterhead harbour trustees said:
We will not seek oil related work for the Peterhead Harbours in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has confirmed my impression of last Wednesday, that he got assurances from the majority

of the trustees. That is different from an assurance by Peterhead trustees that they had held a formal meeting to assent to that. It was to clear up that confusion that I put down the blocking motion. The hon. Gentleman confirms exactly what I said earlier.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I want to clear his mind about the situation. He must accept that he asked me to be assured that this declaration of intent, if I can call it that, given by Peterhead harbour trustees would be in his hands before the Bill was called in the Chamber last Wednesday. I got that assurance because time was short and I had to get the assent of the various Peterhead trustees. There was certainly no time to hold a meeting of trustees. Mr. Colin MacRae, the trustees' clerk, went to all the trustees and obtained their consent to the wording.
Paragraph 8 on page 2 of the statement on behalf of the promoters in support of Second Reading and against the motion to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee—which statement was available last Wednesday in the Vote Office—states:
The Trustees do not conduct any oil-related business and they have no intention of doing so when the harbour has been extended. The additional berthing space is required for fishing vessels and general cargo boats. Oil supply-boats are served either in the adjacent Bay of Refuge, which is not managed by the Trustees, at Aberdeen, where the berthing capacity is far greater and the facilities are more suitable, or elsewhere.
What greater guarantee could the Aberdeen harbour board and its general manager, Mr. John Turner, want? That was a statement of intent, which was available to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and other hon. Members. Hon. Members got what they wanted, but they persisted in their objections.
The objections persisted because Aberdeen harbour board was determined that the Bill would not see the light of day in the House and in the other place. If it could maintain its blocking actions, it was determined to do so. As proof, I refer to the letter sent by Mr. John R. Turner to the chairman of the Peterhead harbour board on 15 January 1986. Its most pertinent sentence states:
We still have many friends in both Houses of Parliament, many of whom have not yet shown their hand.
We have enough experience to know that that is a threat. It is not the language of compromise. It is a threat—"Do as I do, or I shall get you." The letter continues:
Your Bill could still be talked out, or continue to be repeatedly blocked.
Is that the language of compromise? I do not think so, nor would any hon. Member who listened to that statement.
For that reason, we have been faced with a great difficulty, which should never have arisen. The Bill was given a careful Second Reading. It was debated from 7 pm to 9.40 pm, and hon. Members had an opportunity to speak. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North suggested that he curtailed his speech, but I remind him that he spoke for 18 minutes that night and sat down when he felt like doing so. He was not compelled to do so. He had finished his speech and, as far as the House was concerned, he had said his piece.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has tabled four amendments. On amendment No. 1, if no dredging is permitted beyond 5·5 m below mean low-water springs, the first 40 m of the new south quay—work No. 3—would be at a depth of less than 8·5 m at mean low-water


springs. This would exclude ships in the 6,500 tonne class which draw 7 m or 7·5 m. Allowing 1 m for rough weather, it is essential to have a depth of 8·5 m.
Despite what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, there are no objectors to the Bill, apart from the Aberdeen harbour board. No hon. Member has been given the power to object on behalf of other authorities. Other authorities made their objections known during the public inquiry, but they have not sought to reiterate that objection on Second Reading. The views of Aberdeen harbour board were heard through the medium of hon. Members.
A depth of 5·5 m below mean low-water springs is insufficient to enable the new south quay to take vessels in the 7,000 to 9,000 tonne range. The Aberdeen harbour board does not act, as it has purported, on behalf of residents. The chairman of the Peterhead harbour trustees and Captain A. D. Auld have confirmed that at no time had the trustees suggested a compromise in any unofficial meeting with the chairman and the general manager of the Aberdeen harbour board. They found it impossible to reach agreement with the Aberdeen harbour board, despite holding a number of meetings. The Peterhead harbour trustees did lead evidence on the requirement for the depth of water needed to take the size of the vessels envisaged.
Amendment No. 2 proposes to shorten the length of the proposed new south quay by more than half from 303 m to 125 m. This will restrict the class of ship that can enter the harbour. About 90 per cent. of the ships in the 6,500 tonnes class are 135 m in length. They could not be moored beside a quay of only 125 m.
If amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are accepted, the maximum size of ship that the harbour could accommodate would be about only 3,000 tonnes. This would seriously damage the scheme's economic viability, as the ships now using the harbour to load grain are greater than 3,000 tonnes. Most of the cost of the works is attributable to dredging and blasting. Contrary to what has been alleged in the Aberdeen harbour board's notes on its amendments dated 16 January, which it sent to hon. Members, it will be impossible to bring in a ship in the 24,000 tonne category, or anything like it. Such a vessel would have an average draught of 11 m and a length of 180 m. Even at high water, such a ship would be aground when berthed beside the new quay.
7.45 pm
The Aberdeen harbour board and its representatives are fully cognisant of the fact that it is impossible to handle vessels of more than 9,000 tonnes at its south breakwater quay. Vessels above that size require the assistance of tugs, which Peterhead does not possess and has no intention of acquiring. Perhaps that is another guarantee that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North would like. Vessels of this size would call only occasionally at the port. The Peterhead bay harbour already handles such cargoes. The Peterhead harbour trustees have never handled this type of trade, nor can they possibly do so. Because of the draught of such vessels and because the entrance to the harbour is on a lee shore, vessels of such size could not be manoeuvred. Construction of the south breakwater is expected to create a berm at approximately 8·5 m, give or take a metre or two, and Aberdeen harbour board knows that.
I turn to amendment No. 3. For purely technical reasons, a downward limit of deviation of 1·5 m is needed. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has proposed a deviation limit of 0·5 m. Underwater rock blasting creates an inverted cone-shaped hole and the varying and unpredictable nature of the seabed makes it impossible to blast economically within a range of 0·5 m. The downward limit of deviation has been agreed with the Department of Transport. Ground conditions will require the removal of small pockets of soft or loose materials to gain a good foundation, and 1·5 m should be adequate — 0·5 m would certainly not be adequate.
The trustees have demonstrated that they have no intention of handling vessels of the 24,000 tonnes rate and that those vessels will be handled only in Aberdeen. The vessels that require a larger draught are needed to move grain. Aberdeen harbour board has said that grain work is declining. If that is so, why has the port of Aberdeen constructed a grain quay at the expense of several million pounds? The Grampian regional council has decided that because the grain comes from the hinterland it should be handled by regional harbours covered by the Grampian regional council. A letter from the Buchan branch of the National Farmers Union of Scotland in connection with the extension to the quay states:
Grain has been exported from the port for many years, building up to 150,000 tons of barley and 25/30,000 tons of other grains, coming close on 200,000 tons per annum…We believe that to maintain the high standard experienced over many years…the extension of the harbour is essential.
The branch has no hesitation in wholeheartedly supporting the proposal of the Peterhead harbour board.
Amendment No. 4 asks that the depth of water within 5 m of the north face should not exceed 6·5 m. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has referred to that. About 260 m of work no. 3 on the new south quay will stand in an existing natural depth of 8·5 m and more. Rock infilling to provide the foundation to the new quay will restrict the depth to 8·5 m, but for the trustees to have to fill in the seabed more than that deliberately to restrict the draught of vessels cannot be justified. Allowing for an underkeel clearance of one, 6·5 m at mean low water springs would accommodate a vessel of about 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes. However, coupled with amendment No. 1, not even a vessel of that size could be accommodated at the new south quay. Amendment No. 4 contradicts amendment No. 1.
I have given the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North the assurances that he seeks in respect of the oil-related work that Aberdeen harbour board does not wish to be removed from its port. That assurance has been given to the hon. Gentleman in the statement that was available in the Vote Office and in a letter. If the hon. Member were really interested in the welfare of the fishermen, he would realise that the extension is paramount to them and not to any other trade, although it is allied to others. The extension is being built for the benefit of the fishermen. I hope that having heard my comments the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North will not divide the House, but that he will withdraw his amendments and allow the Bill a safe passage.

Mr. Harry Ewing: If delaying the Bill last Wednesday served any purpose, it was that at least at 6·25 pm this evening we received an assurance from the Peterhead harbour board trustees that they would not seek oil-related work in the foreseeable future.


It is interesting that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) should say in his closing remarks that the developments were primarily to ensure the safety of fishing vessels. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and I agree on the need to ensure the safety of fishing vessels. The amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North would meet that requirement. If the safety of fishing vessels using Peterhead harbour was the only matter at stake, the amendments could safely be accepted. Every fishing vessel that uses or is likely to use Peterhead harbour could continue to use it with more safety after the development if the amendments in terms of water depth, tide levels and rock blasting were included. The amendments would not jeopardise safety. They would add to the safety of fishing vessels using Peterhead harbour and the proposed new south bay development.
Safety is not all that is at stake. The safety of fishing vessels is not the centrepiece of the Bill. We must be openly honest with ourselves and realise that the purpose of this privately promoted legislation is to extend Peterhead facilities into an area of land that the Peterhead trustees do not own. That has provoked the legislation and not developments that might take place at Aberdeen, Grangemouth, Leith or any of the Forth ports. Those developments take place on land owned by the Forth ports authority. The Peterhead harbour authority does not own the land on which the development is proposed. The Bill has been promoted not primarily in the interests of the safety of fishermen, but to expand the facilities at Peterhead to take in vessels of a greater tonnage.
I accept what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said about grain exports. I am glad that the Peterhead harbour trustees have put assurances in writing, not only to the Aberdeen harbour board but to other ports. I suspect that Montrose is also involved. I am glad that the Solicitor-General is with us in the debate. I am grateful that those assurances have gone to other ports that depend heavily on oil-related work to sustain employment. I know that Mr. Turner, the general manager at Aberdeen harbour authority, would welcome the assurance of Peterhead harbour trustees that they will not seek oil-related work in the foreseeable future.
The Peterhead harbour trustees will be held in the years to come to the commitment that has been given in writing and that has now been put on the record of the debate. That is important for Aberdeen and Montrose and any port on the east coast of Scotland that deals with oil-related work. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) for objecting last Wednesday to the Bill going through on the nod, because that has given us the opportunity to place those guarantees on the record.
When the harbour master at Peterhead, Mr. Auld, gave evidence to the public inquiry chaired by Lord Hughes, he made it clear that vessels of a tonnage not exceeding 5,000 were envisaged—in other words, vessels used for the export of grain. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was talking, not of vessels under 5,000 tonnes, but of ships between 5,000 and 7,500 tonnes. That makes a massive difference to grain exports. While I am prepared to accept the Bill tonight, I would be failing in my duty to the east coast ports which at present handle grain exports if I did not register my fear that the development of Peterhead

harbour to take vessels up to 7,000 tonnes for exporting grain can have only a detrimental effect on the trade in grain from east coast ports.

Mr. McQuarrie: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a grain exporter on the Forth, in Grangemouth or Montrose, would transfer grain all the way to Peterhead for export, rather than export it from those other ports? The only reason why the docks are being extended is to accommodate the grain brought from the hinterland to be sent out from Peterhead, and the importation of lime and fertiliser, which is solely for my constituency and others near Peterhead.

Mr. Ewing: With great respect — usually when a politician says "with great respect" he is about to describe the person about whom he is talking as lacking in knowledge—I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that his intervention betrays his lack of knowledge about what is happening in our ports at present. Exporters do not pay the road haulage costs between the point where the product is produced and the port of export. That is why our ports are suffering so much from the grid system, under which the ship owner pays the road haulage costs from Perth and further afield, not to Peterhead, but to Felixstowe.
Of all goods for export which have their manufacturing base in Scotland, 75 per cent. are exported from Felixstowe. They are not exported from Scottish ports because the vessel owners find it cheaper to pay road haulage costs to Felixstowe than to have the vessel steam to Grangemouth, Leith or Montrose to collect the goods. I doubt whether the Peterhead harbour trustees will pay the road haulage costs of grain exporters from Tayside, Fife, Central region, south-west Scotland or another agricultural area, which seems to be what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. McQuarrie: rose—

Mr. Ewing: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has been rather impetuous. He must remember that when Peterhead is developed it will be a non-scheme port, and so will trade at a distinct advantage to the scheme ports on the east coast which are part of the national dock labour scheme. However the hon. Gentleman seeks to present his argument, Peterhead harbour will be at an advantage.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman must not seek to put on the record that the Peterhead trustees or I are endeavouring to estabish a system under which they will pay for grain to come to Peterhead from any part of Scotland. They have no intention of doing so. The hon. Gentleman should not put across a message for which there is no justification. He is being extremely unfair to the Peterhead harbour trustees and to me to suggest that. He knows perfectly well that that is not so. He is not even sowing a seed which is a possibility. What he has said is unrealistic and most unlikely to happen.

Mr. Ewing: I admire the authority with which the hon. Gentleman speaks on behalf of the Peterhead harbour trustees, and I hope that in years to come that authority will be backed up by their actions. We can only wait and see, as a former Prime Minister once said.
The possibility of oil-related work no longer worries me, but grain export work gives me cause for serious anxiety. The hon. Gentleman said that Grampian regional council thought that all grain from Grampian region should be exported through what he described as regional


harbours, whatever that means. I should have thought that Aberdeen was a regional harbour in the Grampian region, so I am not sure what he means. If the Peterhead development is to be justified financially, and if there is to be an adequate return on the £17 million capital investment — Conservative Members are always in favour of that—

Mr. McQuarrie: £13 million.

Mr. Ewing: It will be £17 million before the job is finished. Big capital projects have a nasty habit of exceeding the original estimated cost. If the development is to be justified financially, the farmers in the region will have to grow far more grain than at present, and I do not believe that that is possible. That is what leads me to fear that grain will be drawn from other ports on the east coast to Peterhead. While I shall allow the Bill to go through tonight, I do so with fear and no little trepidation.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I understood that amendment No. 1 was acceptable to the chairman of Peterhead harbour board, and that amendment No. 2 was not to be moved because it would represent a concession by Aberdeen harbour board.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), and I share many of the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), who is worried about both oil-related and non-oil-related traffic. We now have assurances, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman confirmed the views of individual trustees which were presented to me on a piece of paper last Wednesday. We are here tonight precisely because that piece of paper was not good enough and because I wanted assurances in a proper form. I have fears not only for the future of Aberdeen but for the viability of Peterhead. I also have fears about the viability of the east coast ports in Scotland and for all the ports in the country because of gross over-capacity. The Government ought to have stepped in with a proper ports policy.
I know the constituency of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan extremely well. I have many friends and relatives there. The suggestion that we were in some way trying to disrupt Peterhead and stop it having safe refuge and safe harbour is nonsensical.
Having heard the assurances, and despite the fact that they are not totally acceptable to the Aberdeen harbour board, at the end of the day I and the House must justify our decisions and I must make my own judgment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — British Railways (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill, in common with its predecessors, stems from the duties placed upon the board by the Transport Act 1962:. As the House will know, I have had the privilege of proposing the Second Reading of a number of these Bills in the past. It may therefore be for the convenience of the House if I spell out the duties placed on the board by the Transport Act 1962:
It is the duty of the Board under the said Act of 1962 inter alia, to provide railway services in Great Britain and, in connection with the provision of railway services, to provide such other services and facilities as appear to the Board to be expedient, and to have due regard, as respects all those railway and other services and facilities, to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
The Bill is yet another milestone in establishing a safe, economical and viable railway system. Much of the Bill is concerned with the electrification of the east coast main line and related works. There are other matters which I shall refer to in my remarks.
It may again be for the convenience of the House if I define what is meant by the east coast main line. That means the railway between King's Cross station in London and Edinburgh with a branch line to Leeds. Part I of the Bill defines the terms and objectives and incorporates certain general Acts in common with Acts of this type. Part II, clause 5, deals with the power to make works and to maintain them. Part III, clauses 24 to 37, gives power to carry out bridge works and these are the bridges concerned in the electrification of the east coast main line. Part IV deals with the purchase of land. Part V covers the incorporation of works provisions. Part VI deals with certain protective provisions which again are common to these Bills which relate to the Crown, police, electricity, gas and water authorities. Part VII deals with the miscellaneous provisions and there are two matters of some interest in this part of the Bill. Part VIII deals with general provisions which are standard planning, appeals, arbitration and the cost of the legislation. The schedules are self-explanatory.
The proposed changes in the Bill are necessary because of the changes in use patterns generally, the new arrangements with local authorities which are being established by the board and a general policy of good housekeeping. Hon. Members will see that the Bill is in fact a substantial document. It deals with a number of matters other than those to which I have already referred, namely the electrification of the east coast main line.
While I do not intend to recount all these changes unless hon. Members wish to refer to specific alterations, there are one or two changes which I shall highlight as they evidence the points I am trying to make. Clause V, concerns work No. 2, the new road and footpath at Bull's Lock, Newbury. This level crossing, which also carries a public footpath, is regarded by the British Railways Board as one of the most hazardous on the western region. It is situated on a curve; the maximum line speed at that point is 100 mph, and there is only limited visibility in each direction. The potential dangers are enhanced by the fact that the road approaches to the crossing are steeply graded, thus restricting visibility for road users. Additionally,


there is a history of indiscipline in the operation of vehicular gates by authorised users, and a number of near misses have been reported. Such use as has been made of the telephone installed at the crossing to enable drivers of road vehicles and those herding cattle to check with the signalman that the way is clear before crossing has been erratic to say the least. For a number of years, the board has wished to close the crossing and if the powers proposed in the Bill are granted by Parliament, the board will do so.
That is a good example of trying to meet the criterion which I established at the beginning of my remarks to make the service safer and more efficient. The board will no doubt have many other opportunities in the future to carry out this type of improvement and clause V is a good example of what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.
Similarly, in part II there is in clause 17 an example of what I mentioned earlier, namely, the relationship between the British Railways Board and the local authorities. As an example, I cite the case of Ermine street level crossing at Hibaldstow, Humberside. Under the Humberside county council's road scheme for the Brigg and Redbourne bypass, a length of Ermine street on either side of the Ermine street level crossing will be stopped up by the county council while it constructs a bridge to carry the new road over the railway a few yards west of the crossing. That will mean the isolation of the crossing from the rest of the road system and therefore, as a matter of good housekeeping, the board seeks power formally to stop up Ermine street between the crossing gates upon the completion and opening for public use of the new road. I cite those two examples, but there are others in the Bill and if hon. Members wish to refer to them I shall do my best to deal with them if I have permission to speak again.
Part VIII of the Bill, under miscellaneous provisions, deals with an important change in the pension schemes of the British Railways Board. In clause 45, it is proposed that the board shall constitute a new pensions scheme entitled "British Rail Pension Scheme". That scheme will acquire the assets and liabilities of two other existing schemes, namely, the British Railways (Wages Graded) Pension Fund and the new section of the British Railways Superannuation Fund. Bringing these two funds together under one heading and bringing the assets and liabilities together in the way I have described will make the operation of the new scheme more efficient. The new scheme will obviously be much larger and hopefully will be more secure against the fluctuation in the values of assets.
I want to make it clear that, in any changes of the kind that I have described, no benefits will be prejudiced in any way and that the people who will benefit from the scheme will be completely protected. It might again be worth noting that statutory authority is being sought on this occasion because of the enormous size of the assets involved. The total assets of the existing schemes total some £3,000 million. That is a very large operation indeed. I wish to make it clear that the new scheme should be an improvement and in no way a diminution of the services provided by the board's pensions schemes in the past.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to clause 47 which comes under the miscellaneous provisions. It has caused some anxiety, because it relates to Hungerford bridge, which is not far from here. The clause relates to that part of Hungerford bridge alongside Charing Cross station which extends from ground level in Villiers street

to the point where it meets the flight of steps leading to the Victoria embankment, adjacent to the Embankment station. The change is being made because of the habits of vagrants who sleep and occupy the bridge to the discomfort of pedestrians. The bridge has to be closed, which means that pedestrians cannot use it.
The entire length of Hungerford bridge is supposed to be a public thoroughfare. Section 8 of the Metropolis Toll Bridges Act 1877 requires the board to maintain and keep the bridge in substantial repair, suitable and open to the public at all times, for every description of foot traffic. Section 30 of the Act permits the board to stop up and discontinue any part or parts of the footbridge upon substitution of an alternative route for pedestrians which is adequate and proper.
Notwithstanding those statutory duties, for a number of years the board has found it necessary completely to close the length of the footbridge to which clause 47 relates because the covered portion adjacent to the steps leading down to Villiers street was being misused and being occupied at night by vagrants. That resulted in numerous complaints from rail travellers and other members of the public.
In an attempt to combat that problem, the board for a number of years has been nightly locking the gates giving access to the footbridge from Villiers street and at the top of the steps leading down to the Embankment. The board's staff, who were responsible for locking, were being threatened and subjected to much verbal abuse when they tried to evict the vagrants from the covered portion. That prompted the board to close the entire length of the footbridge.
Following discussions with the GLC and Westminster city council, the board has agreed to improve the covered portions of the footbridge and, upon completion of the improvements, to reopen the footbridge. In return, and subject to clause 47 passing into law, the GLC and Westminster city council will relieve the board of its obligations under sections 8 and 30 of the 1877 Act to which I have just referred. The city council has agreed to accept the dedication of that length of the footbridge which will then become a walkway under section 35 of the Highways Act 1980.
I have taken a little time to explain that point, because the bridge is a famous London landmark and one does not want to do anything to limit access to it. I hope that have explained that there are real problems in operating that part of the footbridge as we do at present. I hope that the new arrangements will be more satisfactory.
This is not a controversial Bill. There are, and will properly be in its later stages, opportunities for detailed consideration. It is yet another milestone along the route to making the British Rail system more efficient, safer and more acceptable to the travelling public.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It was not originally my intention to object to the Bill at this stage, but in view of what was said by the Chairman of Ways and Means at the end of the proceedings on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill last week, I thought that it would be useful to speak on this Bill now rather than when it came to the consideration of possible amendments.
I welcome the electrification of the east coast main line and all British Rail's proposals to improve and modernise it. My only complaint about British Railways Bills is that


in the past the board has obtained powers through the House but has not had the finance to carry out its proposals, and some of them have never come about.
I am worried about the way in which the Bill deals with footpaths. I am anxious about clauses 9, 11, 14 and 23, and the schedule, and clauses 28, 33 and 36. The point was made last week—I think it is one that the Chairman of Ways and Means accepts—that in some cases private Bills promoted through the House do not serve the best interests of local communities. It is not easy for local people who might use the footpaths to know of the Bill's existence. Most people who take their dogs out for a stroll, go along the footpaths in the summer, come back from their newspaper round, or whatever, do not look carefully at the British Railways (No. 2) Bill or any other of its private Bills.
It would be far more satisfactory if British Rail dealt with the closure or diversion of footpaths as anyone else would have to do, not by promoting a private Bill but by serving notice on the local authority and asking for a diversion or closure. Notices would then be put up on the footpath or bridge and local people would have the right to object. If there were objections, the objectors would have the right to a local inquiry. The inquiry inspector would make a recommendation in favour of or against the closure or of a diversion. Local people would enjoy a simple procedure.
Unfortunately, that has not happened in this case. We have a complicated procedure which is, on the whole, remote from local people—a private Bill. I suspect that one or two of the proposed closures will come as a surprise to many local people, because they will have been completely unaware of the Bill's existence.
I know that British Rail will counter that argument and say that, even if it went through the local procedure, as an Act created the footpath, probably by diverting an earlier footpath, it would also have to seek parliamentary approval.
We should be considering our procedures, but until we amend them I argue strongly that British Rail should go through the local consultation procedure of putting up notices and letting local people know whether the proposals would affect them adversely. If there were no objections, no one would need to take any action. If there were objections, their validity could be tested locally.
At the moment the procedure is unsatisfactory. Local people know nothing about the Bill. It is fortunate that with such a Bill the Ramblers Association checks carefully. If there is a series of footpath closures, it may decide to petition against the Bill. The Ramblers Association then starts to write to the local associations to find out whether anyone is interested in the matter. We do not know whether anyone locally is genuinely interested because once the Ramblers Association writes to the local association it thinks that it had better protect the footpath. We have the unsatisfactory position where action is motivated from the centre rather than locally. We have no clear idea whether there is strong feeling locally or whether the Ramblers Association and others are merely pursuing a matter of principle.
I plead with British Rail to deal with footpath matters for the time being by applying for local closure or diversion notices. Having obtained them, British Rail should incorporate them in the Bill, and it can then certify

that the local inspector found in its favour after a local inquiry. If it cannot convince local people and the local inspector, the closure should be left out of the Bill.
I hope that that sort of consideration can be given. When the Bill goes into Committee and the Ramblers Association's petition is considered, British Rail will be able to say that, between Second Reading and the petition being heard, it has applied for local diversion and closure notices and the result is that in so many cases it has had a certain number of objections and in other cases it has not.
There may be some difficulties of time with the Bill. I wish to make it clear to the House that if British Rail does not follow that procedure, then I shall seek, on consideration, to put down amendments to those footpath closures. It is unsatisfactory that footpaths can be closed by means of a Bill without local people knowing about it.
I hope that when the House sets up a Committee to look into the private business procedure, it will consider the way that footpaths may or may not be closed by means of private Bills and will amend the Standing Orders to make it clear that proposals for footpath closures can only be put forward once there has been a local inquiry and the inspector has agreed that it is in the best interests of everyone for the footpaths to be closed.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am glad that I have been called on the Bill. I support the electrification of the east coast main line. I support the other clauses in the Bill and, if necessary, I shall vote for them tonight.
I wish to discuss other issues which involve the electrification of railway lines. The first matter concerns Stansted airport. British Rail is anxious to build a new line from Stansted station through to the airport. The Government's decision on the future of Stansted will be of crucial importance. My constituency would welcome that project going ahead. I hope that the line will be built from Stansted station through to Stansted airport and that it will have north and south facing connections. Thus, people will be able to travel from King's Lynn through to Cambridge and then to change and go from there to Stansted and on to the airport. It will obviously be a great benefit to my constituency.
I am also concerned about the railway line from London through to King's Lynn via Cambridge and Ely. I am slightly troubled because there are no measures in the Bill to electrify the stretch of line from Cambridge on to King's Lynn. We feel slightly left out because the London to Norwich line is almost completely electrified and the London to Cambridge stretch is being proceeded with at a pace and will probably be completed by May 1987. That, therefore, leaves the stretch of line from Cambridge through to King's Lynn, the chief town of west Norfolk and one of the most important towns of East Anglia. I cannot overstress the importance of the rail link. We have a reasonable service and a good timetable, but, alas, the rolling stock is fairly old and many improvements could be made. I pay tribute to the efforts and loyalty of the local British Rail staff who work tirelessly to provide the best possible service to Norfolk and especially west Norfolk.
We do have the odd complication, and unfortunately one such complication took place only 10 days ago. One of my constituents was travelling by train from King's Lynn to London. The constituent was subjected, alas, to eight stops and the train arrived 40 minutes late. My


constituent's breakfast also found itself on the wrong side of a locked door and the toilets in her compartment were filthy. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of this incident and he has probably had a word with BR about it. I am glad to say it is the exception to the rule. At the time I made some comments about the incident to the local paper and I may have gone over the top. I did say it was a disgraceful incident and that, in future, I would have to think twice about encouraging the Minister, should he come to my constituency, to travel there by train. I received some flak in the local press for saying that—it is easy to say things on the spur of the moment. Of course I totally back that railway line and when the Minister does come to my constituency I hope that he travels by rail rather than car.
We need to have this stretch of line electrified. The rail link is crucial to King's Lynn. King's Lynn does not receive any regional aid. We are trying hard to get unemployment down and, over the past year or so, the unemployment level has been static. I believe we are winning the fight to create new jobs and the local economy, especially the small firms sector, is thriving. We are trying, all the time, to attract new firms into west Norfolk and into King's Lynn. We are also trying to improve the trunk roads. The borough council of King's Lynn and west Norfolk recently announced a major campaign to improve the A47 trunk road west from King's Lynn through to Peterborough into the midlands. The council is also backing me in my campaign to get the railway line electrified. We are trying hard to encourage existing firms to expand in King's Lynn, and we are trying to attract firms from outside. We are doing what we can to build up the economic base with a view to reducing unemployment. We are succeeding, and we shall continue to succeed.
We recently had the excellent news that a major national organisation, the Construction Industry Training Board, announced that it would relocate its London headquarters in west Norfolk. I have campaigned for that for some time behind the scenes with the CITB management. The board has its Civil Engineering College and its training centre at Bircham Newton. It therefore made sense for it to move its headquarters up to west Norfolk. I pushed that decision as hard as possible and the board announced, only last week, that it will look for a substantial number of new local employees to join the headquarters at Bircham Newton.
That is a major vote of confidence in west Norfolk and it bodes well for the future. I do not believe that that organisation or other organisations or companies would have come to west Norfolk, or indeed others will come, if they did not have confidence in the rail service. If incidents such as that which affected my constituent recently are repeated too often such companies may live to regret their decisions. I believe electrification will go ahead and it is important that it should proceed.
The docks at King's Lynn are also expanding and there is a good deal of scope for an increase in freight and industrial traffic. It is a chicken and egg situation. If one has a better service then there will be more domestic and commercial usage of that service. If there is not this level and quality of service then less custom will be attracted.
I believe that the electrification from Cambridge through to King's Lynn should proceed. The electrification of the Cambridge stretch should be completed by May 1987. If British Rail do not electrify the line from

Cambridge to King's Lynn, there will be problems. A major rail service from London to King's Lynn will have an electrified service as far as Cambridge but a second rate service from there to King's Lynn. A different set of rolling stock will have to be maintained to provide the service for the second leg of the journey. That would make the line inefficient and in the long run more costly. The cost of maintaining diesel locomotives is high. They guzzle fuel and they require a great deal of care and attention to stop them from breaking down. If traffic fell off on that part of the line, it would be vulnerable in the future. I would fight tirelessly to keep it, and I know that the people of west Norfolk, the county council, the borough council, and everybody else involved would fight to keep that line.
If the line is not electrified, it could be vulnerable to a cost-cutting Government at some stage in the future—perhaps not in five or 10 years, but beyond that into the next century. It may be chopped by a future Beeching. If we spend money on electrifying the line, it will be saved for the foreseeable future. What is more, the electrification could go ahead on commercial grounds. British Rail has launched an appraisal of electrification from Cambridge to King's Lynn, the results of which will come out later in this year, and until we get that appraisal we shall not know the estimates and exact figures as to future traffic flows.
However, the terrain from Cambridge to west Norfolk is very flat. There are few bridges and it would be relatively cheap to electrify this stretch of the line. It would represent first-class value for money. If we do not electrify, we shall be putting in jeopardy the economic and commercial future of west Norfolk and the expansion of many firms there. Of all the issues facing my constituency at the moment, without doubt the most important are unemployment, economic growth and the development of the small firms and agricultural sectors, but all these things are dependent upon good communications, good roads and good railways.
Infrastructure is crucial to west Norfolk and there are times when I, as a Conservative Member, say that the Government should spend more money on certain parts of the infrastructure. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees with me, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). There are times when spending money on infrastructure for its own sake is not cost effective and will not create jobs, and in the long run will do the country economic damage. However, certain selective schemes can benefit a particular area and help firms there to get their goods to market, be more competitive and give them a more competitive edge against European rivals, so in this case the Government should go ahead.
For such a scheme, we are not talking about much money, probably under £10 million, but it will guarantee jobs, help to create new jobs, encourage the small firms sector and boost the image of an important part of the country. That is money well spent. I shall be pushing my hon. Friend the Minister, and as soon as the appraisal comes out I shall be meeting him and the chairman of British Rail to do all that I can to stress the case for this project. It is crucial to the economic well-being and industry of King's Lynn and to the future of many people in my constituency.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of this debate and I hope that what I say has not already been covered by any hon. Member. I share the view of all those who have spoken about the need and the wish to see British Rail successful, efficient and commercially as viable as we can make it. I shall concentrate my remarks on a small aspect. However, I shall set them in a wider context because they give me cause for some concern about the way in which our railways are being run.
Over the past decade, my constituency has seen considerable growth in its population, much of which uses the west country main line from Exeter, through Newbury to London, to a great extent for commuting. People want a fast, efficient and reliable service and I am sorry to say that they have not always had that, certainly not in the past 12 months. They want as much warning as they can be given by British Rail about possible hold-ups and they want to be sure that they are aware of any likely problems that may cause them to take an earlier train or to change their timetable to London or for getting home. Therefore, I stress the need for a safe, fast, efficient and reliable railway, and in particular one that is safe for passengers and for those who have to cross the line.
When I received a letter dated 20 January from Mr. Simon Osborne, the principal assistant solicitor at British Rail, to remind me that the Bill was due for Second Reading soon, I read his letter with considerable interest. He kindly advised me about the section of the Bill that relates to the level crossing, known as Bull's Lock crossing, on the west of England main line near Newbury. He says:
This crossing is regarded by the Board's operators as one of the most hazardous on the Western Region, being situated on curved track giving only limited visibility at a point where the maximum line speed is 100 mph. The potential dangers are enhanced by the fact that the road approaches to the crossing are steeply graded, thus restricting visibility for road users.
I have no doubt that he is correct in his comments, but that persuades me to ask the question, "If this danger has existed for so many years, why has the British Railways Board only now decided that it should do something about it?" I hope that I shall have an answer to that question tonight.
The letter continued:
Added to this, there is a history of indiscipline in the operation of vehicular gates and a number of 'near misses' have been reported. Such use as is made of the telephone installed at the crossing, to enable drivers of road vehicles and those herding cattle to check with the signalman that the way is clear before crossing has been erratic, to say the least. Elimination of the crossing is therefore in everyone's best interests.
That statement worries me because I wonder how many other such crossings exist on British Rail main line routes and can be described as having
a history of indiscipline … and a number of 'near misses' have been reported.
We deserve an answer from British Rail to that question, as the safety of those using crossings is at risk, as is, perhaps more so, the safety of passengers travelling in the trains using the crossings, and of possibly finding the crossing blocked off by somebody crossing in a vehicle, or even by animals being herded across the line. Why has British Rail only now decided that this is a hazard, and so hazardous that it deserves to find its way into the annual Bill? How many more crossings of this kind can be described as having

a history of indiscipline … and 'near misses' have been reported.
What is involved in the work outlined in the Bill and its schedule? What does the work entail? In particular, would it affect trains crossing the culvert, because the idea is to re-route the private footpath and crossing through a culvert in the railway line? As comments on restructuring appear in the Bill, I wonder whether the work will affect trains using the line—for example, will they be able to pass over that part of the line only at a reduced speed thus clearly changing the projected arrival time at Newbury, Reading or Paddington? Will the culvert have to be strengthened, and when is work due to start? Last but by no means least, how much does the British Railways Board expect the work to cost and how soon does it think it will be finished once it is set in hand?
I believe that, although the Bill in its entirety seems to be worthy of the House's support, the points to which I have drawn the House's attention raise wider issues and make me ask whether British Rail is examining its lines as carefully as it should. The west country line is not new, it has been in existence for many decades, and to be told now that the crossing constitutes a serious hazard on a 100 mph stretch and to be told only in 1986 that British Rail thinks that something should be done about it leaves me with a horrid feeling that there may be other dangers lurking on other main lines which British Rail would do well to look at as a result of tonight's proceedings and set in hand the work required to make them safe if such work is needed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): It may be helpful if I give a brief indication of the Government's view of the Bill. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. A few minor points will need to be raised by the Department of Transport, but I have no doubt that they will be cleared up satisfactorily.
There are petitioners against the Bill and they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of having expert evidence. I recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading and be allowed to proceed to Committee in the usual way for that detailed consideration.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I shall deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) regarding footpaths and other matters. He will know that local publicity is given in those situations. The reason why some of the conditions to which he referred are not always answered is because the Highways Act 1980 does not always apply to the situations we are talking about this evening. However, I can tell him that the local newspaper carried advertisements about the closures in December 1985 and notices were posted at either end of the footpath in November 1985. Therefore, the board is anxious to ensure that local people are aware of what is happening.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there are petitions, which will be considered in detail later. That is a valid


point, because ramblers and others use the footpaths and they have every justifiable reason to be aggrieved if they are suddenly closed and no proper warning is given. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will have been noted by the board, and perhaps we can look at them again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) will be glad to know, as he probably does already, that the Airports Bill dealing with Stansted will come before the House soon. The point that he raised about the railway link with the proposed airport extension can be dealt with in that debate. However, I entirely agree with what he said about improving services in east Anglia and his own constituency. I assure him that the board has those matters under review and is anxious to press ahead with them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the Bill. I hope that we shall be able to ensure that all of his constituents enjoy better journeys than the ones to which he referred and the one which some of us read about in the newspapers not long ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) raised an important issue. It is alarming that dangerous stretches of the railway still exist without action being taken. The board has been negotiating with land owners in that area for a considerable time. Even tonight, I am not able to give my hon. Friend a firm date as to when the work will start because negotiations are still continuing. All the clause will do is give the board the necessary authorisation.
On the matter of the irresponsible behaviour of certain individuals, I can assure my hon. Friend that the railway police and others do what they can to ensure that breaches of regulations are dealt with, but, of course, they are somewhat overstretched. In a sense, the complaint which my hon. Friend makes points the need for these Bills. Many people have often thought that this sort of Bill should be handled by a Government Department, but, because the railways have been built over private land, special provisions have been required. The case of Bull's Lock crossing is a good example. Private landowners are concerned and it is partially for that reason that no action has been taken before. I made it clear in my opening remarks that the board is always anxious to find examples of danger and to deal with them as swiftly as possible. I can assure him that his remarks will be noted by the board and it will continue to do all it can to improve safety and efficiency.
I have tried to deal with the points raised by hon. Members. I commend the Bill to the House, because I believe that it provides yet another helpful step in the development of the railway system.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — Milford Haven Port Authority Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Keith Best: I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a modest Bill. I am encouraged to be brief by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I tell the hon. Gentleman that, not only is it a modest Bill but it is a brief Bill. I wish that all legislation that came to the House were as brief. However, its brevity should not in any way diminish the importance of the Bill and I shall detain the House just a little to explain why it is important. I want to say why the promoters of the Bill have sought to move a private Bill rather than a harbour revision order. Some hon. Members may say that a harbour revision order was a better way to proceed. Section 62 of the Harbours Act 1964 gives a harbour authority the freedom to proceed either way. Despite the hopes initially entertained for the system, the harbour revision order is not particularly quick, simple or cheap. Even an unopposed order usually takes as long as a private Bill. An opposed order often takes more than a year even if it does not end in special parliamentary procedure. Some orders have taken much longer than that.
Furthermore, the harbour revision order procedure can confuse the issue by permitting objections to be made that are outside the strict scope of the order that has been promoted. At the time that the board of the Milford Haven conservancy decided to promote legislation there was in process in Whitehall a harbour revision order, promoted by the Warkworth harbour commissioners, which, having started as a simple order, became a lengthy and costly affair because of the ramifications permitted by the objection and public inquiry procedure for harbour revision orders. The order that was subject to that procedure did not come into effect until about two years and four months later. The general manager of the Milford Haven conservancy board advised the use of the private Bill procedure, not least because of what had happened at Warkworth.

Mr. Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend has described graphically the gloom and doom side of the harbour revision order procedure, but does he agree that he is overloading that side of the matter and that it is possible for harbour revision orders to go through all the procedures far more quickly than that? It is not unknown for harbour revision orders to take no more than two months. Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is impossible for the private Bill procedure to take less than eight months?

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All things being equal, even if a private bill is opposed, this private Bill, having been laid in November 1985, should reach its final stages in July 1986. My hon. Friend asks why a harbour revision order is not appropriate. I understand that he is to oppose this measure. That fact alone will extend the procedure in the way that I described at Warkworth.
The facilities at Milford Haven include five oil terminals that were built by oil companies—Esso, BP, Texaco, Gulf and Amoco—under powers conferred by an Act of Parliament in each case. Commercial facilities also include a ferry terminal that was built by the board at a total cost of £10 million, the facilities of Milford dock,


an enclosed dock that is owned by a separate statutory harbour authority, the Milford docks company and some other fairly minor installations. The former royal dockyard at Pembroke dock has been largely sold into private ownership. The board's ferry terminal occupies part of the site but the Ministry of Defence retains a section at the western end of the dockyard. Apart from commercial traffic, the haven is extensively used for recreational purposes. The diversity of the operations in the harbour make it necessary to have on the board interests other than those represented by the oil companies.
Part I, schedule 1, to the Milford Haven Conservancy Act 1983 lays down that a representative of organised labour has to be on the board, a representative chosen after consultation with two district councils and with Dyfed county council. It is right that a broad diversity of views should be represented on a board such as this. The Bill is being promoted precisely for that reason: to ensure that no inhibition will be placed upon service on the board by anybody who might represent diverse views but who would be a significant contributor to the board's operations.
By the mid-1970s Milford Haven had become the largest oil port in Great Britain, handling nearly 60 million tonnes of crude oil and oil products. Since then, because of such factors as OPEC and the exploitation of North sea oil, the haven's oil traffic has been substantially reduced. However, in 1985 it was still in excess of 30 million tonnes of oil and other cargoes. In that year, slightly over 26 million gross tonnage of dues-paid vessels entered the port. Of the five oil terminals originally constructed, that owned by Esso is largely disused because of the closure of the Esso Milford Haven refinery, and the BP terminal has been taken over by Texaco as a result of BP's decision to phase out much of the capacity at its Llandarcy refinery which was supplied with crude oil by pipeline from Milford Haven.
The total capital employed by the board is approximately £20 million. Over the years about £10 million has been invested in a ferry terminal and about £7 million of capital expenditure was devoted to dredging the haven's deep water channel to enable 275,000 tonne tankers to be accepted on virtually every tide. Together with two subsidiary companies, the board's annual turnover is approximately £5·5 million. In recent years, average net surpluses before tax of about £1 million per annum have been achieved.
The objectives of the Milford Haven Port Authority Bill 1986 can be simply stated. The first objective is to change the name of the Milford Haven conservancy board to the Milford Haven port authority. The second objective is to provide the board with the power to pay fees to ordinary members—that is, members of the board other than the chairman, vice-chairman and executive members — as well as travelling and subsistence expenses.
To deal with the first of those objectives, the term "conservancy" in the board's present title has been the cause of much misunderstanding. It has been commonly assumed that the board's functions resemble those of the Nature Conservancy Council. It was for similar reasons that in recent years the former Harwich harbour conservancy board took steps to have the word "conservancy" deleted from its title. Furthermore, the title "Milford Haven Conservancy Board" has been a misnomer

since 1975. Before then the board's functions were indeed confined to those of a conservancy authority, as the Harwich harbour board functions still are. In 1975, however, Parliament conferred on the board a considerable extension of functions and powers by the Milford Haven Conservancy Act 1975, all this legislation now consolidated in the Milford Haven Conservancy Act 1983. In general the board's current functions and powers resemble those of other major trust authorities in Great Britain.

Sir William Clark: Given that we have had the 1983 legislation, why did the Milford Haven Conservancy Board not bring forward the change of name and, indeed, the payment of non-executive members of the board? I understand that only one member of that board is non-executive and is not a salaried official of some oil company or other.

Mr. Best: It may well be regrettable that the matter was not brought into the 1983 Act, but I remind my hon. Friend that that was very much a consolidating Act.

Sir William Clark: My hon. Friend will surely agree that in a consolidating Act all the loose ends are tied up. I cannot see the justification for expenditure of some £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 on a private Bill to change the title of a body or to pay the members of the board something that is already being paid by the private sector. Why is it necessary to increase the number of quangos—I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with me in this matter—by paying fees to these non-executive people? There is no limit to the fees which they may be paid.

Mr. Best: It merely brings the board into line with other port authorities. My hon. Friend has really answered his own intervention. Although consolidating measures are helpful in tying together loose ends, if some loose ends are still flapping, I am sure that he would be the last person to argue that they should remain flapping in the wind for ever. The promotion of this Bill is the opportunity to ensure that those loose ends are tied up firmly and that the Milford Haven board is brought into line with other port authorities.
If I may deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend about the membership of the board, he will know that there are 12 members of the board. The chairman and vice-chairman are paid. There is facility under paragraph 19 of part 1 of schedule 1 to the 1983 Act, to which I referred, for payment of the chairman and vice-chairman. There is a general manager who is also paid. There are two representatives of oil companies, one from Gulf and one from Texaco, who are paid by their companies.
I remind my hon. Friend that there are people on the board who do not receive any remuneration from the oil companies or by virtue of their membership of the board or by virtue of being paid officials of the board. There is, for example, the representative of organised labour who receives not much remuneration, and there are those who are appointed after consultation with the two district councils and the county council. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that there should be no inhibition on a representative of organised labour, often a retired trade union official, as in this case, Mr. Driscoll; or indeed on representatives of local authorities from serving on a port authority and taking a substantial and necessary part


in the way in which the port is organised simply because they are not given any remuneration. That would be unjust.

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend will be aware that many local authorities appoint councillors to a wide variety of outside bodies and, as far as I am aware, the question of payment rarely, if ever, arises. Most local authority councillors accept the appointment to bodies with which the authority is connected as part of their duty, not something for which they should seek payment. Why should my hon. Friend seek, through the Bill, to breach that principle? Does he agree that it is dangerous to try to knock holes in the principle?

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend misunderstands the purpose of the Bill. Perhaps I have explained it inadequately, but, in fairness to me, I hope that he agrees that he has not given me much chance to explain it so far. The representatives who are appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the district councils and the county council are not necessarily councillors. Local authorities can recommend that any individual should serve on the board. Therefore, what my hon. Friend has just said is erroneous. He might be right if it was the invariable practice that everyone appointed as a result of the consultation between the Secretary of State and the local authority was a member of that authority. But that does not follow under the Act. The local authority is not obliged to put forward the name of one of its members, nor is the Secretary of State obliged to appoint a member of the authority.
My hon. Friend is saying that there should be a financial inhibition on people serving on an authority, such as a port authority, because they will receive no remuneration and are being asked to give their time free when the representatives of the oil companies are already being paid decent salaries—one does not begrudge them that—by the oil companies concerned.
In a moment, I shall deal with another anomaly in the stance of the oil companies. It was an oil company that proposed a measure, which was adopted and is now enshrined in the Bill, to enable the fees that might otherwise be payable to a member of the oil company to be paid to the parent oil company, so that the company would benefit in any event.
The Bill is designed simply to facilitate payment. It does not provide an obligation to make payment. It is simply an enabling Bill to allow the port authority to make payments to individuals as it sees fit. Most other port authorities which have a similar power exercise it to give some remuneration — usually a very small sum and nothing which could be regarded as a living wage—to those who serve on them. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friends will allow me, I shall proceed, because it is important to explain all the matters. Perhaps they would do me the honour of waiting to hear what I have to say, and then no doubt when they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, they can make their own points.
May I deal with the proposed power to pay ordinary board members fees? The Bill includes such a provision because it is thought to be unreasonable that members of the boards who devote time and effort to the conduct of the boards' affairs, and who may have no income derived from business in and around the haven, should not be remunerated apart from having their reasonable expenses

met. The proposed power would be discretionary—it would be for the board to resolve whether to exercise it and, if so, at what level to fix ordinary members' fees. Any fee offered could, of course, be waived by the member, and there is also provision for a fee to be paid to a member's sponsoring body if he so desires. As I said a moment ago, that was proposed by an oil company representative on the board.
As will be stated later, the power is well precedented in other ports. The Rochdale report of 1962 will be well known by my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). No doubt it has been their bedside reading for a long time in preparation for this debate. At paragraph 95, that report recommended that non-executive members of port boards should be paid a fee
as in the case of other statutory authorities or boards of public companies, the fee to be appropriate to the demands and responsibilities of the appointment.
The report also said:
The purpose of this provision will be self-evident.
It is in order for me to say something about the Bill's history. The idea of proposing a Bill and its content was put before the board in a paper by its chairman. It was circulated for discussion at the board's meeting in January 1985. There was lengthy discussion during which a variety of views were expressed. At the end, the board resolved to proceed with the Bill and authority was given to apply to parliamentary agents to draft it.
The Texaco representative was absent. The Gulf representative showed a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the proposal to pay fees to ordinary members, but he did not ask for a vote or for any dissenting view to be recorded in the board's minutes, which were duly approved at the following board meeting. The minutes of that board meeting, on 18 January, say this inter alia:
The chairman said that while some members might have reservations, the majority were clearly in favour of the board taking power to pay fees to ordinary members.
I can provide a copy of the minutes if my hon. Friends would like that. They continue:
In further discussion, general agreement was reached that a private Bill should also provide for a change of the board's title to Milford Haven Port Authority.
For the board meeting in September 1985, copies of the draft Bill were circulated to board members. They were also sent to the oil company refinery managers who have not served on the board, including a Mr. Havers of Amoco. At that meeting, both oil company representatives were present. One of them proposed that the draft Bill should be amended to provide that a member could ask for a fee to be paid to the body that employed him or otherwise was involved in his appointment to the board, rather than to himself. It is strange that the oil company representatives agreed, maybe tacitly, but certainly did not dissent from the idea that there should be payment of fees. Indeed, one was so non-dissentient that he proposed an amendment to how fees could be paid—to the parent body rather than to the member. It lies somewhat ill in the mouth of oil companies to say now at this late stage that they object to these modest proposals.

Mr. Burt: It is not unknown for people to formulate views over a period of time. In this case, the dissent of oil companies was made known early. It is clear from my hon. Friend's description that the oil companies' representatives are in a considerable minority and that their objections carry little weight if the other members of the


board are opposed to the oil companies. Their anxiety has led to this debate. My hon. Friend cannot suggest that, because the matter has to go through a certain procedure before coming here, although the oil companies objected but could do nothing because of their slight power on the board, they could do anything other than allow the matter to come here. My hon. Friend cannot suggest that the matter coming here after all this time suggests a heartfelt change in attitude such as to make the oil companies' comment in any way reprehensible.

Mr. Best: I can only assume that my hon. Friend has come uncharacteristically unprepared to the House. It is quite clear that he has not seen the minutes or discovered what proceedings took place. If he had read the minutes, he would realise that the oil companies raised no objections from January last year, when the matter was first proposed at a board meeting, until the beginning of this year. Indeed, the oil companies went along with the rest of the board. Both representatives were able to call for a vote or for objections to be entered in the minutes, but not once did they do that.

Mr. Burt: On that point alone would not my hon. Friend agree that in a board of 12, where the oil companies have two representatives, the mere calling for a vote just for the sake of the record is pointless?

Mr. Best: It is not pointless. If one feels strongly enough about a matter, presumably one would wish to have that objection registered. The objection was not registered. No opposition to the Bill was expressed at the meeting in September when the draft Bill was in front of the board. Indeed, the approved minutes of the meeting record that its content was generally approved.
At the beginning of November the Amoco refinery manager, Mr. Havers, who was not a member of the board, expressed concern to the board's general manager about the Bill, confining his complaint to the payment of fees. The board's general manager suggested to him that he should wait to see how in practice the board might wish to exercise the powers conferred by Parliament, or, if he were not content to do that, to write to the chairman of the board on whose original initiative the Bill was being promoted. He chose not to adopt either suggestion at that time.
However, Mr. Havers served on the advisory committee of Milford Haven, which had met on 29 October when he was present. At that meeting, when the general manager of the board explained in detail why it was proposed that there should be payment of fees, no objection was made by Mr. Havers; certainly none was recorded in the minutes. One can only assume that at that stage he was satisfied with the explanation that had been given by the general manager of the board to the advisory committee.
The first written articulation of dissent was in a letter of 3 February of this year, some days after the Bill's Second Reading had been blocked and after petitions from his own oil company and two other oil companies had been lodged against the Bill. So at no time between January 1985 and January 1986 did either of the two oil company representatives on the board make further representations to the chairman.
The petitions are all framed in identical terms, which does not show much inventiveness if nothing else, even to

the extent that in paragraph 3 there is an assertion that each of the three companies is represented on the board. That is not true in the case of Amoco, there being provision in the board's constitution for no more than two oil company representatives at any one time.
As for the proposal to change the name of the board, the petitions offer no argument or appreciation of the reasons which were made clear in the discussions which led to the adoption of the proposed change of name and in which representatives of two of the petitioning oil companies took part. I do not wish to add, therefore, to what I said earlier about the reasons for the insertion of clause 2. The main thrust of the petitions is against the proposal to pay fees and much is made of cost considerations. I hope that both my hon. Friends will understand that by objecting to the Bill now they are doubling the cost of the Bill.

Sir William Clark: How is that?

Mr. Best: If the Bill is to be given a Second Reading tonight, as I hope it will be, it will go into Committee. If it is opposed, it will take much longer and, therefore, will be much more expensive than it might otherwise be.

Sir William Clark: Surely it is an extraordinary principle to advocate in the House that if two hon. Members think a Bill is wrong they should not push their objection because it might add to the cost. I must point out that I have a connection with Texaco. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) has not explained why the name should be changed from a conservancy to a harbour board. My second point is that it is creating another quango. My hon. Friend shares my views on Conservative philosophy and we are diametrically opposed to quangos.

Mr. Best: I am diametrically opposed to a useless quango, but if my hon. Friend says we are dealing here with a quango he is also saying that the Port of London authority, the Medway ports authority, Dover harbour board, Shoreham port authority, Clyde port authority, Forth ports authority, port of Tyne authority, Tees and Hartlepool port authority and Ipswich port authority are also quangos. I do not know if my hon. Friend likes travelling around the country, but if he goes to all of those and accuses them of being quangos, he will not find himself a welcome guest. I am sure he would not say that they are all quangos, because they perform a perfectly proper function in managing their ports. That is the purpose of the board as presently constituted and the port authority as it would be if the Bill reaches the statute book.

Sir William Clark: If it is now essential that we should pay these non-executive members of the Milford Haven board, why is it that up until now the board has been successful without making payments?

Mr. Best: It is largely to bring it into line with other port authorities.

Sir William Clark: It is in line.

Mr. Best: It is not in line with other port authorities, because the authorities that I have mentioned and that are now on the record all have provision for payment of their members. That is an example of setting something on the record as a matter of precedent to ensure that this port authority, if the Bill goes on to the statute book, would have the same facility as existing port authorities.


On the matter of cost, let us say, ex hypothesi, that the payment to an individual member is in the region of £1,000 a year. That is in line with the payments made by other port authorities. That would amount to £8,000 per year, because there are eight members on the board who could be eligible for payment. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, some are already earning salaries. It is reasonable to suppose that two of those would be oil company members and would either not take the fee or would have it directed to their parent companies. In that event the effective annual cost would be reduced to £6,000 at most if all of the other six members decide to accept a fee.
If the board were to conclude that the £6,000 per annum had to be found by making an increase in the conservancy due, the increase required would be approximately 0·6 per cent. on the current level of basic due. That stands at 3·6p per gross registered tonne and is beyond doubt one of the lowest conservancy charges of any major oil port in Great Britain. An increase of 0·6 per cent. would raise the due from 3·6p to 3·62p. That represents an addition of one fiftieth of one penny. I hope that neither of my hon. Friends would wish to argue that that will be a crippling burden on the oil companies. If they do argue that, then I suspect they will not carry the House with them.

Sir William Clark: I am sure my hon. Friend is right in that point, but if it said in the Bill that the payment is restricted to £1,000 at today's figures, a lot of the opposition would fall.

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend may serve on the Committee dealing with this Bill. I hope he will take the point that the matter he has just raised is one for Committee and not for Second Reading. By virtue of what he has just said and the way he has put it, he has generously conceded that there should be payment but that there should be a limit on payment, in which case look forward to supporting the Bill. I hope that he will be able to serve on the Committee and move an amendment that there should be a ceiling on the amount of payment. I do not know and I cannot speculate, but that might even find favour without going to a Division, particularly if that suggestion were addressed to certain members of the board.
I understand that some port authorities make provision for a maximum payment to local authority members so that they do not receive remuneration in excess of what they might otherwise receive by way of attendance allowance at a local authority meeting. These are matters for the Committee, not Second Reading.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. It is a modest, important and necessary Bill. I hope that, in those circumstances, my hon. Friends will accept what I have said and will support me in the Lobby.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I shall first make clear my interest in this matter. I have no financial interest to declare. I am not paid or retained in any way by any party to this matter. When I first became a Member, I took an interest in energy matters because of the great importance of energy costs to consumers, especially industrial consumers, in my constituency. I have retained that interest, which is uppermost in my mind when talking about the Bill. I make no secret of the fact that my concern about the oil industry and the costs affecting that industry, which has been through a boom period but is now in some

difficulty, is known to the oil companies, especially Gulf and Chevron. They have been in contact with me about the Bill, and I would not seek to hide that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) made a good speech, but I am sorry that it was wasted on such a trifling issue. There is not much doubt that the Bill has little substance. There is no need for it to be before the House. This issue need not have troubled us. The Bill seeks to change the name of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board to the Milford Haven Port Authority and to provide for payments to be made to board members, and that is all. The change of name is of small consequence, but the matter of payment is one of principle. Despite that, I suggest that such a principle is not a suitable subject for this procedure and that it could have been handled in another way, if required. It is not required. In the context of the position at Milford Haven and the oil industry, it would be the wrong thing at the wrong time. The Bill does not deserve a Second Reading.
I shall deal first with context. The port of Milford Haven is located at the south-western tip of Wales, surrounded by a coastline of outstanding beauty. The harbour waterway, which extends 15 miles inland, is ideally suited to sailing boats and similar pleasure craft. There are up to 1,000 sailing boats — ranging from dinghies to large ocean-going yachts—in the haven at any one time. Generally, the oil companies and the yachting fraternity live happily side by side.
Historically, Milford Haven has had strong connections with the Royal Navy and the fishing industry. After the second world war, the naval presence was steadily reduced to the present armaments storage depot and underwater recovery facility. During the same post-war period, the size of the fleet fishing from Milford Haven declined as Irish sea and other local fish stocks were depleted. But the port's location placed it at a disadvantage with regard to the long call fishing grounds around Iceland. However, such disadvantage as the port suffered in relation to fishing proved to be no disadvantage in relation to the oil industry.
The sheltered deep-water harbour and the port's good weather record proved to be attractive to the rapidly expanding oil importing and refining industry of the late 1950s and 1960s. Around 1960, BP constructed an ocean terminal on the south side of the waterway where crude oil, pumped in ever larger tankers, was off-loaded and pumped to the Llandarcy refinery some 70 miles away between Port Talbot and Swansea. Esso and Texaco followed closely and constructed oil refineries on the north and south shores respectively. Shipping activities increased significantly as crude oil was delivered and a high proportion of products were moved by sea to the consumer. Gulf and Amoco followed. Massive investment was put into Milford Haven. Government grants, especially regional development grants, proved to be an incentive.
The immediate availability of a number of separate supplies of the then cheap fuel oil encouraged the Central Electricity Generating Board to construct the largest and the last oil-fired power station—the Pembroke power station—on the south side of the haven. The station is supplied by pipeline from the refineries. By 1976 the port supplied approximately 25 million tonnes — almost 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom's oil refining capacity—and 20 million tonnes of that capacity was located on the shores of the haven.


The House knows the problems resulting from the OPEC instigated price increases of 1973 and 1976. They triggered a series of events that have had a profound effect on the oil industry worldwide and, significantly and crucially, on the port of Milford Haven. The large increase in oil-based fuel prices depressed consumption, because of price, the switch to cheaper fuels, energy conservation and improved efficiency of use. By 1980 the European oil industry had almost 40 per cent. overcapacity. That problem affected all the oil companies that use Milford Haven today. The continued operation of the marginal refineries resulted in petroleum product volumes exceeding demand with a consequent reduction in product prices and refinery margins. Oil refining, especially at the less sophisticated and less efficient sites, became unprofitable. In the latter case it became highly unprofitable. As a consequence, the industry shut down the simple refineries and concentrated operations at the more sophisticated and lower cost locations.
In the late 1970s the industry recognised the need to construct more sophisticated plant, which would produce more higher value products at the expense of low value products. The construction programme of those fluid catalytic crackers and, to a lesser extent, hydro-crackers and vis breakers was accelerated. Construction was concentrated at each company's best location. Texaco and Gulf and, separately, Amoco and its new partner, Murco, constructed two FCCs and associated plants at Milford Haven. However, the industry was changing and Milford Haven, through no fault of its own, began to feel chill winds.
In 1983 Esso announced the closure of the Milford Haven refinery, which was followed in 1985 by BP's decision to rationalise its operation at Llandarcy, which resulted in the closure of the oil terminal at Milford Haven. The total refining capacity at Milford Haven had now been reduced to approximately 15 million tonnes per annum. Average throughput in the next year or two will probably be limited to about 12 million to 13 million tonnes. As I said earlier, that is almost half what it was 10 years ago, which is a significant decline.
The recent fall in crude oil prices from about 28 dollars to 16 dollars a barrel has disrupted the industry. To say the least, the future is uncertain. In the long term, low oil prices should benefit industry in general. However, the switch to higher demand will take several years. While that process is continuing the capacity at places like Milford Haven will decline and the port will be in some difficulty. The need to watch costs will become paramount. That uncertainty makes the board's move to pay expenses to board members inexplicable to the oil companies.
Has the relationship between the Milford Haven Conservancy Board and the oil companies always been bad? Has their relationship always ended up being debated in a contested private Bill of small consequence? The relationship between the board and the oil companies has not been all that bad. As the port grew in the 1950s and 1960s, it was obvious that an authority was needed. The conservancy board fitted the needs of the port and the oil companies, and it has worked closely with the major oil companies.
The board's composition has reflected the variety of interests that it serves in the area. My hon. Friend the

Member for Ynys Môn has referred to the composition of the board, which is set out in schedule 1 to the Milford Haven Conservancy Act 1983. The oil companies nominate two members and Trinity House nominates one. There is one union representative, one representative of shipping agents and brokers, and two local authority representatives. The harbour master and the general manager serve as of right. There is a chairman, a vice-chairman and a representative of some body concerned with the environment. Therefore, there are 12 members, of which the oil companies have only two.
All but the representative of the environmental body are or could be remunerated in some form, not through the oil companies, but through their everyday work. They accept membership of the board as a duty which they cheerfully perform. My hon. Friend never said that the board was short of members, or that there was great pressure from any existing members for payment.

Mr. Best: I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend is factually incorrect. How can he tell the House that members who are appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with two district councils and a county council, must necessarily receive remuneration from elsewhere? The present membership is self-employed and is not necessarily receiving remuneration from another body.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend's paean of praise and his newfound enthusiasm for Wales. I am not sure how he squares it with his statement on 12 February when he intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). The hon. Lady said that no mention had been made of Wales, and he said:
It was not worth mentioning." — [Official Report, 12 February 1986; Vol 91, c. 1020.]
Is my hon. Friend trying to filibuster and talk the Bill out? So far, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) has twice told him to slow down, and has passed him a note.

Mr. Burt: If my hon. Friend wants to give me a demonstration of filibustering, he has just done so. He spoke for a considerable time about a small Bill and left many points which need to be cleared up. [Interruption.] I accept that he was generous in allowing interventions, but he will appreciate that there are many points to be considered and that I have made all my remarks relevant.
The only irrelevance during the past few minutes has come from my hon. Friend. He rightly referred to a remark I made in a debate last week. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) had been describing a remarkable character who lived in the last century called Mr. Smith O'Brien, who apparently thought so little of anywhere but Ireland, a constituency of which he represented, that he did not participate in English or Scottish affairs. The hon. Lady, in an aside, said that he made no mention of Wales, and I remarked that Wales was not worth mentioning. Indeed, at the time of Mr. Smith O'Brien, Wales was not worth a mention because he did not give it one. It is to the credit of the hon. Lady and others who have represented Wales since then that it is now impossible to disregard Wales. I have spent many happy holidays in Wales and there is no suggestion that the feelings of Mr. Smith O'Brien are my feelings. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has allowed me to correct that misunderstanding and misapprehension. The hon. Lady, to whom I spoke afterwards, took the whole matter as a joke. She


appreciated my apology. The sense of humour of the hon. Lady and of the people of Wales will now be satisfied by my explanation. Whatever Mr. Smith O'Brien may have thought of Wales, I have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for it. My forebears are Celtic, so I have a close affinity with that great Principality.
I take my hon. Friend's point seriously regarding the members appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the local authorities. I fully accept that if they are not remunerated, my earlier words do not stand true, and I withdraw them.
Most of the members of that board receive money from their general occupations and they serve on the board as a matter of duty. I refer to a matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn failed to mention in his speech: that the board members were clamouring for payment and there was a dearth of people waiting to serve on the board, so there was a strong case for change.
We in the Conservative party are supposed to leave matters alone unless a problem should occur. Change for the sake of change is not necessarily the best maxim for the Conservative party. Yet the tenor of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn was that we should have change for the sake of change. He could suggest no benefits that would accrue from the change he proposed.
I believe that the relationship between the board and the oil companies is good. The board performs the usual functions of a port authority. My hon. Friend made the point that he seeks only, in some way, to make the board's power equal to that of other port authorities around the country. However, the Bill does not seek any major powers. The conservancy board at Milford Haven already provides for and maintains safe navigation in the harbour. It controls the construction and operation of marine facilities and identifies and designates safe moorings. It ensures that the harbour is operated in a safe and effective manner. There is nothing of substance in the Bill to affect the serious matters that relate to harbours. There are just two small inconsequential points.
I maintain that that fact alone has prompted the greatest concern amongst the oil companies. There is no suggestion that the Bill seeks major powers. The board already performs the functions that all port authorities perform and, by and large, the board does that well. That is one of the reasons why the oil companies and the board have had such a good relationship for so long.
The board's facilities have expanded to meet the needs of a new authority. Additions have been made to staff and equipment as the port's activity has increased. A purpose built administration building and control centre was completed in 1964. The board has a good record of steadily increasing the channel size, in navigation aids and the design and economy of launches leading to the current replacement of the harbour radar surveillance by a more powerful and highly sophisticated system.
The record of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board on oil pollutiion prevention is highly commendable with its system of committees and working groups manned by oil company and board staff, usually led by the harbour master. The harbour has developed effective operating procedures for the prevention of and cleaning up of such pollution. In general terms, the relationship between the board, particularly its operating staff, and the oil companies is at a very high level. I am sure that the oil

companies would wish me to pay tribute to the good work that has been done by the conservancy board and its staff over many years.
The competent professionalism of the board's officers and staff is highly regarded. They, in turn, are aware of the oil companies' environment and the pressures upon them and generally react in an understanding manner.
If everything is working so well, as generally it is, why is there need for change? My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ynys Môn said that the changes would bring the board into line with others. I would like to know what the benefits would be. I can see the two changes outlined in the Bill, but my hon. Friend has not suggested how the consumers, the people who use the Milford Haven port authority, would benefit from the changes. My hon. Friend has not made the case for benefit, so I believe that the need for the Bill has not been made. There has been no desire for payment from board members. Again, I stress that my hon. Friend did not suggest that the board is short of members. So why is there a need for change?

Mr. Best: The benefit would come in the same way as my hon. Friend and I receive a parliamentary salary. It would mean that nobody need feel inhibited in serving on a port authority as a result of financial impecuniosity.

Mr. Burt: I accept the point, but I challenge my hon. Friend to say whether he has any evidence to show that anyone of whom he can think has been inhibited from serving on the board due to lack of remuneration. My hon. Friend remains in his place.
I shall deal with some of the financial aspects which are crucially important to the oil companies. In 1969, a major dredging scheme was undertaken. At that time, the board had no cash reserves, but it had an overdraft. The Treasury said that as a condition of the loan the board should aim to make a profit sufficient to build up over the years a cash reserve of £500,000. The dates are significant. In 1969, the board had no cash reserves. The reserves have been increased over the years and now stand at just below £3 million, compared with an inflation rate target of £2·7 million. The excess will be consumed in paying for the new radar surveillance system in 1986. The cash reserves have been invested successfully over the years. The dividend and the yield form part of the board's income and capital growth helps to protect and increase the cash reserves.
When determining harbour dues, the board balances its effective income from harbour dues, based on the oil companies' estimates of future traffic, from investments and major project income against operating capital expenses. A net margin is targeted, first, to inflation-proof reserves and, secondly, to obtain a return of 10 per cent. on capital employed.
In 1975, the National Ports Council, with the approval of the Labour Government, recommended that port authorities should aim to receive a return on capital employed of not less than 10 per cent. That latter target has plainly rankled in latter years when oil companies have been losing money.
From an early stage, the conservancy board provided transport for harbour pilots to and from vessels in the harbour. The cost of those services is recovered from the pilotage authority. The board has no control over the pilots or the pilotage authority other than through representation on the management committee and good working relationships.


In 1970, the board supervised a large dredging project to allow the safe passage of larger ships in and out of the harbour. The £6·4 million expenditure was funded through the conservancy board by a loan and grant under sections 11 and 12 of the Harbours Act 1964. The beneficiary companies, initially Esso, BP and Texaco, are effectively repaying that loan over 25 years. Esso and BP are obliged to maintain repayments until the loan is discharged, on a ship or pay basis.
In 1978, and after much activity by the board, the British, Irish and Steam Packet Company effectively contracted the Milford Haven Conservancy Board to construct a roll-on/roll-off terminal at Pembroke dock for a newly established Pembroke dock to Rosslare passenger service. B and I in turn contracted repayment of that loan, plus a suitable profit element. The outstanding loan is about £9 million. B and I pays port dues on appropriate shipping movements in addition to those charges.
Those large financial transactions appear to have whetted the board's entrepreneurial appetite. It acquired two private companies operating within the port—the Marine and Port Services Company, a small boat repair and construction company to which my hon. Friend has referred, and D. V. Howells, which is also a small boat construction and repair company.
The board provides accountancy services to those two subsidiaries. The purchase and continued operation of those two companies has been a bone of contention between the oil companies and the board from the outset. The acquisition of the subsidiaries was not seen to be consistent with the board's functions. In addition, the board has resisted fallback suggestions made a number of times to integrate the two operations in favour of cost savings.
The board's operating revenue is obtained from port dues, capital project income, pilotage charges and investment income. In excess of 95 per cent. of the port dues will fall on the remaining oil companies—Amoco, Gulf and Texaco—in the future.
Bearing in mind the port authority's financial problems, the decline in traffic and the fact that BP and Esso have gone and the large part played by the oil companies in its finances — 95 per cent. of all port dues — and the consequential need for great confidence between the board and the companies, the Bill's timing is wrong.
At a time when costs need to be reduced to as low as possible—that affects many industries other than the oil industry — and when the board needs to be seen to be doing as much as possible to help, it comes along with this proposal, and the Bill, to increase expense, no matter that it is by a small amount. It is sending out the wrong signals at the wrong time. Bearing in mind the good relationship over the years between the oil companies and the conservancy board, this seems a great shame. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn would agree.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has not maintained, as I mentioned earlier, that ex hypothesis there might be a net increase of £6,000 to discharge payments of dues. Does he accept that if that is right, the extra revenue would involve an increased charge per gallon of ·000001p? Is he seriously telling the House that will cripple the oil companies?

Mr. Burt: No, of course not. My hon. Friend persists in missing the point of principle in referring to the figures. I do not quarrel with those figures. Can my hon. Friend point to anything in the Bill which fixes the costs at the levels which he has just mentioned? Once again my hon. Friend remains seated. It is a point of principle. There is no guarantee that the costs which he has mentioned will come to pass. In all common sense, the costs will be in that region, but no one knows that and it does not say so in the Bill. It is the point of principle that has concerned the oil companies. In a time of great financial stringency, when the oil companies have to cut back—indeed, some oil companies have had to leave Milford Haven—the oil companies now see a couple of extravagances coming from their boards —the promotion of the Bill and the suggestion of expenses being paid.
If my hon. Friend and those who promote the Bill had put forward the need for the changes and the need for expenses to be paid then there would have been more sympathy. That has not been done. There is a bone of contention over the period of time which has elapsed since this matter first arose between the oil companies and the conservancy board through discussions that took place at board level.
The proposals to change the conservancy board's title and to pay fees to ordinary board members was raised at the January 1985 meeting. I have a copy of the appropriate minutes—despite what my hon. Friend has suggested. The Gulf representative disputed the need to pay fees on the basis that all members were already salaried by interested organisations. It was pointed out that those circumstances may not always apply and that one member was in that category. The resolution was carried. My hon. Friend has asked why more protest was not made. I have already explained that the composition of the board is 12 members, and the oil companies hold two posts. There is no point in fighting again and again for a vote which always goes the same way. My hon. Friend will see that the minutes for the January meeting clearly state:
Some members did not feel that payment of a fee to ordinary board members as well as their expenses was altogether appropriate in the circumstances of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board.
The objection of the oil companies was clearly stated—their dissent was marked. There was no point in forcing a matter to the vote time and again when the odds were so stacked. The oil companies had no wish to pursue the matter in that manner.
At a later meeting the Gulf representative asked for the inclusion of clauses to allow payment of fees to be made to members' employers in the event that fee payments were made. This is also a matter to which my hon. Friend has made reference. The reason was that the oil company members who serve on the board had no wish to profit themselves through such fees. It was a straightforward matter for them to direct the payment of those fees to their companies.

Mr. Best: An acceptance of the principle.

Mr. Burt: No, there was no acceptance of the principle. The oil company representatives in a minority, with no constitutional power to block the motion, were anxious not to be seen to profit by it. They were thus seeking to fund the money back through their companies. In the circumstances, that was an honourable thing to do. The suggestions to the contrary by my hon. Friend are completely rejected.


In April 1985 consultants were appointed to review B and I's lack of profitability with a view to rationalising the business. Since that time, the oil companies' representatives on the conservancy board have been seeking to suggest stringent economies, but they have not been forthcoming.
The Bill has proceeded, but the oil companies have made their opposition clear from the start, and suggested that the Bill was unnecessary and of no benefit to them or anybody who used Milford Haven. Alas, the Bill has still come to the House. I am sure that it is with the great regret of all that the matter has come this far, but there is no doubt that the matters that have so concerned the oil companies have been matters of principle and should, if the Bill is to proceed in this way—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed on Thursday 20 February.

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People

10 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move,
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
Articles 2 to 4 of the draft order increase the present limits on candidates' expenses at parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom and local government elections in Great Britain in line with changes in the value of money. Article 5 provides for a similar increase in the case of candidates' expenses at ward elections in the City of London. If the draft is approved by both House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an order as soon as possible thereafter in time for this year's local government elections on 8 May.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Are we to be together again?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman and I have been together for so many days that we should get this one over as quickly as possible.
Article 1 provides for the order to come into operation on the day after the day on which it is made. It will then enable candidates who are in the middle of an election campaign to incur expenses to the new limit permitted by the order. It will not, however, validate expenses in excess of the present limits which have been incurred before it takes effect.
The current limits for parliamentary and local government elections prescribed by section 76(2)of the Representation of the People Act 1983—excluding those for GLC and ILEA elections—were originally fixed by order in March 1982. So too were the limits for ward elections in the City of London prescribed by section 197(1) of that Act. By the end of August 1985, however, the retail price index has risen by 20·2 per cent. My right hon. Friend accordingly decided to increase those limits by a similar amount under sections 76A and 197(3) of the 1983 Act. Those provisions enable him to vary such limits by means of an order subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, but only to take account of changes in the value in money since they were fixed.
All the major political parties and local authority associations in Great Britain were consulted about the proposed increases and raised no objection to them, although one of those consulted asked whether it would be possible for the figures to be rounded up or down to become more easily committed to memory —for example, by changing the rate for parliamentary elections in county constituencies from £3,240 plus 3·7p per elector to £3,500 plus 3·5p per elector. However, sadly, such rounding is outside the scope of the order-making power, and the present figures do not seem to have caused returning officers and election agents any insurmountable difficulty.
The making of an order at this time will enable all the candidates at this year's local government elections in Great Britain to fight a more effective campaign. As for the effect of the order on parliamentary by-elections, I can best illustrate this by telling the House that the present limits in county and borough constituencies of 60,000 electors will be increased from £4,560 and £4.080 to


£5,460 and £4,920 respectively. This does not, however, preclude a further increase before the next general election. I hope, therefore that the House will give this measure its full support.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The Minister will be relieved to know that I should like to get this 48-hour love-in over as soon as possible. Like other hon. Members, we were both here late last night and early this morning.
The Opposition welcome this measure. I have just one thought to leave with the Minister on a point which I understand is not covered by the order. Perhaps he could take on board the thought that the House should attend to some control of the national expenditure by political parties at elections. We limit that in terms of candidates, and yet we leave open ended the matter of national advertising campaigns of political parties. That cannot make any sense. Although I understand that the order does not deal with that, I hope that we shall bring our minds to bear on it.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I am encouraged to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) because it touches closely on a matter which has been in my mind. I support the order, but it seems rather strange that in 1986 we continue to behave as if the methodology of communication with the electorate at election time is the same as it was 50 years ago. As the hon. Member for Erdington said, that emphasises the effect of the national control of elections rather than the ability of the local candidate to communicate with his electorate.
We live in the television age and it is through that medium that national policy and national figures can impinge upon local electors. By such an order local candidates are prevented from having their fair share of the argument. After all, the figure that is available for expenditure by a candidate in any election, if divided by the number of electors, would not cover the cost of a first class stamp if the candidate wished to send something other than a freepost missive to his electors. It would not cover the cost of a telephone call of substantial duration to any of his electors and it barely covers the cost of printing an electoral address which he may wish to send to his electors.
We seem to be dealing with the philosophy of large public meetings and small electorates when the candidate was able to reach his electorate much more easily than is now the case because, now the people have television to watch, a candidate can hardly maintain an audience of more than a few hundred at any meeting in his constituency during an election campaign.
I hope that, as the years go by, we shall consider the philosophy that lies behind orders such as this one. I am not making a personal plea. I spent less than the other candidates in the election which brought me to the House. I am not making a plea for expenditure of United States proportions because they go too far, but I am arguing for a revision of the philosophy which seems to put all the emphasis on national elections and far too little on local elections.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — British Leyland

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I am obliged that I have been fortunate enough to be able to have an Adjournment debate on one of the most vital industries in the heartland of Britain, in Birmingham. So far, there has been no debate on the machinations that have affected the car factory near my constituency. I make a declaration of interest in PPG Industries, but I am nevertheless more concerned to make a declaration of interest on behalf of the numerous members of my constituency who work either in Freight Rover or in Range Rover. Probably over 60 per cent. of the work force actually resides in Yardley.
I shall briefly refer to the construction of the Land Rover Leyland Group. It comprises Leyland Vehicles Limited, Land Rover Group and LRIH which is a company dealing with international matters. Land Rover Group includes Land Rover and Freight Rover. I am not concerned about Leyland Vehicles, the heavy group. The truck division is reputed to have accumulated losses of £500 million. However, it is worth noting that General Motors may not just be interested in Land Rover, Range Rover and Freight Rover as sweeteners. However, it may be interested in the truck division so that it can get its hands on Scammell, which is a subsidiary of Leyland Truck.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. Friend accept that in Leyland Truck as well as in Leyland Bus uncertainty and lack of information is causing most of the aggravation to the work force?

Mr. Bevan: I agree. I shall deal later with the bus division.
Through its Scammell subsidiary, the truck division is one of the two companies that has put in tenders for the £120 million defence order that is shortly to be issued by the Ministry of Defence for rapid fire rocket launchers, which will be able to serve up at a collossal rate of fire power the ammunition needed for those fire launchers. That might be the entrée for General Motors, which is an excellent American company. That might be the real reason why General Motors is trying to get the 1 billion dollar order that may be forthcoming from the Pentagon for similar rocket launchers at a later date. If that is its strategy, it means that it is not intent upon obtaining Land Rover as a sweetener. If that is its intent, we must look at it again.
There are 8,500 people involved in Land Rover, the majority of whom are from Yardley. There are 1,700 people at Freight Rover. The Land Rover factories—14 throughout the United Kingdom—were located as far away as Cardiff. They are now centred upon Lode Lane, Solihull, a few hundred yards over the boundary. All that they have bequeathed to Yardley, Acocks Green and Tyseley are eight empty, old factories.
I do not object to that move, because it did not adversely affect the employment of my constituents. However, their future needs to be assured. Their concern has been expressed to me during the several visits that I have made to factories in the area, on tours in the area and by letters. Their concern is not merely for themselves.

They want to continue to work for what they consider to be a unique British manufacturing company in the case of Land Rover and Range Rover.
The only active factory that is left in Yardley—those eight plants having been bequeathed to the Lode Lane complex where they are rationalised into one unit and are able to compete and take orders from the rest of the world — is BL Technology. It is worth looking at Freight Rover. It is located in Common Lane. Again, that is not in my constituency but the constituency of the of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). It is interdependent. Land Rover supplies the engines and the gear boxes: the 3·5, the two litre diesel and the 77 mm gearboxes. Freight Rover supplies Land Rover with the pressings, which is another interdependency. Austin Rover supplies the engines and the axles. Perkins now supplies a diesel engine. There is, therefore, an interdependency in the estalishments.
It is not true to say that there is vast overproduction in the Land Rover and Range Rover side of the business. There is none. Not a single vehicle is kept in stock. Every vehicle that is made by Range Rover and Land Rover is sold, so there is no stock piling. In the rapid growth market to which I refer, which is the four wheel drive market throughout the world, we must note with apprehension that General Motors, which has a shopping list at its disposal and which is reputed to have some £5·77 billion to spend in buying companies, and only a fortnight ago bought the "Lotus" company, also owns 35 per cent. of Isuzu, a four-wheel drive light truck manufacturing business which has doubled its turnover in the Last year, and is selling well. Freight Rover with its particular vehicle, the Sherpa, has 13·9 per cent. of the market. a sizeable percentage and far bigger than the figure to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred on television last night of 4 per cent. for the whole industry in Europe.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: In the context of the Prime Minister's interview last night, in which she referred to the virtue of wider share ownership, does my hon. Friend not consider that, with its recovery plan well advanced, floating Land Rover on a management buy-out with employee participation might even now represent an opportunity to achieve wider share ownership?

Mr. Bevan: Indeed, I welcome it. I would have thought that my hon. Friend has seen a paragraph which I intended saying later in my speech. His pre-emption, however, is welcome. Of course I consider that that would be a reasonable option, and one which is after all encouraged in almost every theatre of operations.
In regard to the shipyards which will be privatised later this year, if that is the option chosen, in regard to its operations it will consider a management buy-out with management, the work force and the investors all comprising part of such a buy-out.
What I object to—I do this as an erstwhile surveyor and one who carried out many estate deals prior to my coming to this place, with many qualifications, dare I say, for doing so —is what I consider to be quite the wrong way of negotiating the sale of this or any other business is to do it in secrecy, to do it behind closed doors and to do it with merely one other customer in pre-determined mind. That is no way to create a deal, that is no way to excite the best figure from the market. It is so extraordinary that, following the leak of this particular


matter, the tree is being shaken and down from the branches of that tree come purchasers, and every day that continues like falling leaves on the industrial greensward below.
More and more we are told that Lonrho is now interested. We are told that Aveling Barford is interested, a previous subsidiary of BL. We are told tonight that three other firms are interested, although I do not know which firms they are. But the more we know about the matter, the more interest there will be. It would be wrong to announce at this stage, having treated in secret with a predetermined purchaser, that the omelette must be served up by Easter. A very addled egg will be delivered if this time limit is put upon it.
We must ask—why all the rush? We have invested £2 billion in the company, as the Government are always kind enough to remind us. The Government have no money. They have only the people's money and, therefore, they have invested taxpayers' money in this ingredient and act as trustees. They must get a decent yield from that investment. The Government are not considering, are they, taking back any portion of the £1·6 billion that they have invested in the form of guarantees, letters of credit or the agreements that have been mentioned? There is no suspicion of that. Therefore, normally one would have asked that time be allowed for the reformation and rationalisation of Land Rover so that it can produce its supurb new models—the 90 and 110 versions of the Land Rover and the Vogue version of the Range Rover, which goes faster, which has a fifth gear, and which is an excellent vehicle for the markets of north America. I understand that an organisation of about 60 distributing agents is about to be appointed. Since there cannot now be time for that to happen, let us privatise if we must, but let us privatise to the best British buyer, in which the people can take a shareholding.

Mr. Roger King: My hon. Friend has explained why General Motors would be interested in Land Rover and Range Rover, but why on earth is it interested in Freight Rover? That company shares a factory with Austin Rover, obtains its components from Austin Rover, sells its products to Austin Rover, and produces a range identical to that produce by General Motors. Could it be that General Motors wishes to buy it simply to close it down?

Mr. Bevan: That is the fear of my constituents.
Yesterday, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) said that the people of Luton would be happy to see such an arrangement between General Motors and British Leyland. That is precisely why the people of Birmingham are unhappy. They want the British flag to continue flying over their enterprise. They know that Bedford Trucks is about to announce a loss of about £120 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said, the ranges are identical. The people of Birmingham foresee possible doom and eclipse if the matter continues.
The bus business is different. In a previous existence, as chairman of the West Midlands passenger transport authority, I ordered buses from British Leyland and Metro Cammell at £7 million a time, but that is no longer possible. The grant has gone, and there has been privatisation and all sorts of things, including delicensing,

have taken place. I would be happy for the bus division to go to Laird where there is a natural home of it at Metro Cammell, but not this.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that I must deny the hon. Gentleman an intervention.
Land Rovers and Range Rovers are individually crafted as no other vehicle is. We know that 70 per cent. of models produced are exported. There was a 40 per cent. increase last year in exports to Switzerland and a 10 per. cent. increase to Europe. The vehicle, with its immense potential, is about to be sold off in a shotgun wedding as a bartered bride. We ask that the marriage banns be given time to be read properly so that the names of the suitors can be understood, and that our belief in the factory be allowed to continue with the British flag above it and not struck, as the flag over Fort Dunlop has been, and not even as the flag over Westland has been.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am more grateful than usual that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) has had the opportunity to discuss the future of Range Rover, Freight Rover, and Land Rover. I gather that there was a little local difficulty earlier today about possible developments on the future of British Leyland as a whole.
We have had a very busy day in the Department of Trade and Industry. We have had a lot of discussions about the future of BL. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) will remember, we had earlier today a delegation composed of trade unionists from Range Rover and Land Rover, and members of the local council. We discussed the future of Range Rover and Land Rover at great length. Despite the fact that we have had a busy day discussing the future of BL, since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement yesterday afternoon in answer to a private notice question, there have been no new developments.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley. I am aware that the future of Land Rover (UK) has been argued and discussed in the west midlands and the country as a whole. It has been discussed publicly and privately, with conviction and cogently. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) said, the present uncertainty is bound to be a worry. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley in that I do not think that it would be sensible for that uncertainty to go on and on. Keeping the future shrouded in mist would cause serious anxieties among employees and be bad for the future of the businesses.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We are all sympathic about the busy day that my hon. Friend has had. Will he forgive me if I say that we are even more sympathetic about the busy days that lie ahead of him? Before he concludes those busy days, will he give the House one pledge, that before he closes the chapter on this lamentable affair, before he agrees on what will happen to Land Rover and British trucks, and before any agreement is signed the House will, bearing in mind the importance of the issue, debate it before ink is put to paper? That would satisfy many of us, and we would go to bed happy after our busy day as well.

Mr. Morrison: I know that my hon. Friend is a very busy man. We have known each other for 20 years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it quite clear that, when any announcement of anything concrete is to be made, it will be made to the House and it will be debated. I quite appreciate what my hon. Friend has just said.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bevan: May we therefore discount the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made yesterday in the House that he would inform the House when negotiations had been concluded? That is not enough, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has pointed out.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not using the House as a negotiating House. Obviously negotiations will take place with all the separate parties, whether GM or other parties. When a conclusion to negotiations is reached my right hon. Friend will immediately make a statement to the House and he will accept that it will be for the House to debate and decide upon the result of those negotiations.

Mr. Terry Davis: We are dealing with a serious point. What is of concern to hon. Members on both sides is that there should be a debate in the House after negotiations have been concluded but before anything is signed, sealed and sold off. We are anxious not just to know the result of negotiations but to have an opportunity to debate the result before the matter is finally signed. The hon. Gentleman should go a little further—as his right hon. Friend did not do yesterday —and give us that assurance.
I should like two other assurances. [Interruption.] These are important matters for my constituents who work at Freight Rover. Will the Minister follow up the assurances given yesterday by his right hon. Friend about consulting the people who work at Land Rover and Freight Rover and give us an assurance tonight that they will be consulted before anything is signed, sealed and delivered so that the House may debate the issue in the knowledge of what the people who work in the companies want?
Will he also make sure that in the negotiations a legally enforceable undertaking is sought that production of Sherpa vans will not be removed from Washwood Heath and production of Land Rovers will not be transferred from Solihull to Spain?

Mr. Morrison: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman and I came to the House on the same day and I have always understood that the House was sovereign; the House has total and complete control over what happens. If the House decides to go in a particular direction, that is the decision of the House.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I understand from his constituency point of view why he raises it, but it would be totally misleading of me to make any predictions about what may happen because at this stage I do not know what deal there may be with whom, albeit I have accepted that the deal with General Motors is further down the course than the others. In those circumstances, he will understand that I cannot commit myself. I understand the crucial and important point that he has made on behalf of his constituents.
In the few seconds which are left, may I talk about the future of Land Rover, Range Rover and Freight Rover? Of course, they are all crucially important, but my right hon. Friend and I have to consider them in the context of the vehicle industry as a whole. Land Rover, Range Rover and Freight Rover comprise one of the many jewels in the crown of the west midlands. But I hope that the House will appreciate that tens of thousands of jobs are dependent upon foreign car manufacturers. Ford, General Motors and other car manufacturers are established vehicle manufacturers in this country. To a great extent, in some cases to a major extent, they source from United Kingdom component suppliers.
My hon. Friends from the west midlands should remember that in west midlands terms it is dangerous industrially and politically to appear to be anti-American. If we appear to be anti-American the business and jobs that come with American investment may be driven away. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (:Mr. Dewar), knows perfectly well that there is a substantial number of jobs in the Scottish economy thanks to American investment, as is the case in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I hope that all hon. Members agree that the Government's policy must be directed towards a competitive United Kingdom based commercial vehicle industry. We have to decide on the future not just of Land Rover and Range Rover, but of Freight Rover, Leyland Trucks and Leyland Bus. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble knows Leyland Bus very well. That company is not part of any potential deal with General Motors and can be set aside for the purposes of this debate. Nevertheless, it is crucial that solutions are found for the bus industry, too, and those solutions will not be easy to find.
I think it is accepted that there is over-capacity in the truck industry, and some people say that in Europe that over-capacity is 40 per cent. For that reason, if we are to maintain a competitive truck manufacturing industry, we cannot stay precisely where we are. We have to ensure that the truck industry becomes more efficient to meet the demands of the market place. If it does not become more efficient, we have to accept the fact that it could disappear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley raised, as he did last night when he came to see me, the defence implications. I assured him last night that we are satisfied about that. I accept that Freight Rover has been successful over the past few years, and that has been due to the good work of the management and the work force. The problem with the van industry is not dissimilar, and if we did not look properly at the problem we would be courting potential disaster for the whole of the industry in the United Kingdom.
I accept entirely the points made by my hon. Friend about Freight Rover. I hope that he will accept that it is right to look at the industry as a whole. Strong arguments were advanced in favour of retaining Land Rover, Range Rover as an independent United Kingdom company. My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley and several of my hon. Friends have made that point. Management buy-out is talked about. I understand that. I was brought up in the back of a Land Rover, and as the youngest son I still sit in the back of a Land Rover, so I know about the Union


Jack flying over Land Rover. But we have to look at the long-term future, and I would like my sons and grandsons also to be brought up in the back of a Land Rover. The important—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.